Congressional Record-House. 3835

1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3835 died and where there are the best facilities for handling it cheaper than may not within 10 miles of the city of New York charge the same rate it can be done at a place where there is very little business done and or double the rate that it charges all the way from Chicago to New no facilities for handling it. Now, I will hear the Senator from Ten York. nessee. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That is a difficulty which has occurred to Mr. HARRIS. Under the provisions of the bill as it stands, taking my mind. Undoubtedly if the language of the bill is left as it now the illustration from Chicago to New York, every shipment made from stands the implication iB unavoidable that a common carrier within the Chicago, whether to New York or any intermediate point on the line of terms of the bill may charge a rate as great for 500 miles as for a thou· road, is subject to this provision, and the shorter haul can not be forced sand miles. to pay more than the aggregate amount paid on the longer; but if you Mr. HARRIS. Yes; or for 11 miles. take up a shipment midway between Chicago and New York, at a way Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. ·That would be the legitim~tte and necessa.ry station, of one or fifty car-loads of freight, that shipment is not in any implication arising upon the language of the bill. Therefore I desite wise subject to the provisions of the bill. to have the section amended in that regard by the insertion of this lan Mr. PLATT. It certainly is. - guage: · - Mr. HARRIS. May not the transp<rrtation company, so fur as this But this shall not be construed as authorizing any common-carrier within the bill is concerned, charge twice as much for the -shipment from the 500- terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a sh,orter than mile station as it charges from Chicago, the thou...~d miles, to New for a longet" distance. York? This would negative the implication that necessarily arises upon the Mr. PLATT. If it is a fair charge it may; but the Senator has said language used in the bill as reported by the committee. that it could charge twice or three times as much, and the charge is Mr. PLATT. The criticism which is made now by the Senator from still open to the provision in the bill that there must be no. extortion Tennessee, and also by the Senator from Iowa, applies equally to every ate charges. It leaves open the whole question whether the higher short-haul law that has been pa5Sed in the different States as to this charge from the little way station just this side of Chicago is a fair bill, and the answer to it iB simply this: -That it is unnecessary. No charge or not. If it is an unfair charge, an extortionate charge, then railroad company would suppose that it was authorized by any such • it is regulated by the other provisions of the bilL -provision in the bill prohibiting it from charging more for the shorter Mr. HARRIS. May I ask the Senator if the short haul provision than for the longer distances to charge, for instance, as much upon contained in section 4 applies to or regulates any shipment from Chi freight starting within a hundred miles of New York to go toNew York cago to New York except those that start from the point of Chicago? as it would charge for freight starting at Chicago to go the thousand l'II.r. PLATT. It certainly does not, but it regulates-- miles to New York. If it did suppose that it was authorized to do it, Mr. HARRIS. Then, if it be just and reasonable and right to regu all that the shipper would have to do would be to apply to the commis late by law the short haul leaving Chicago in the direction of New York sion and say that the railroad company was demanding exorbitant and all along the line at the various points to which shipments may go from extortionate charges, and it would be remedied in that way. Chicago, is there not just as much reason and justice in allowing the :Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. We might avo~ ft. that by expressly providing way station to ship from its point to New York under the same pro that that implication shall not apply. If the language remaiDB as it visions and with the same limitations and with the same protectioDB of now stands in the bill, undoubtedly if a railroad company should charge law that the shipments can go from Chicago to the way stations or as much for a hundred-mile haul as it does for a thousand miles, and through? If there be ~ difference, I confess that I not able to see it. complaint should be made by the shipper, the answer would be, "We Mr. PLATT. If you admit that justice requires an approach to the are not charging any more than the law allows, for it says ' you shall same rate per mile for freight, then the Senator from Tennessee is right; not charge any more for the short haul than for the long haul,' and we but if yon admit that it may be fair and just and equitable under the are charging the same." circumstances of business to charge a higher rate to New York from a Mr. PLATT. To illustrate further my answer to that point, there is station 10 miles this side of Chicago under the circumstances which I no law now which prevents a railroad from charging $10 per ton per have supposed, then he is entirely wrong. The question is whether mile for its freight; but the railroad company does not do that, and it there may be a discrimination on account of the amount of business to can not do it under the conditions of business; nor can it under the con be transacted at different places and the facility of transacting it. That ditions of business charge as much, to. use... the illustration, for a haul is all there is to it. of a hundred miles into New York as it charges for the haul of a thousand Mr. HARRIS. The Senator certainly does not intend to be under- miles from Chicago into New York. No practical difficulty has been • stood as asserting that the striking out of this language will reduce the suggested, and if there were, the remedy is in the bill. matter-to the same rate per mile. All that it will effect is this: If you .l\Ir. ALLISON. I move that the Senate adjourn. ship from the half-way station between Chicago and New York you can The motion was~o-reed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.) the not charge -more in the aggregate for that half dilltance than you are Senate adjourned. charging for the whole. It would be twice as much per mile if you charged the same aggregate amount for the freight from the 500-m'Ue point t}:lat you charge from Chicago over the entire length of line, being a thousand miles. HOUSE OF RE:rRESENTATIVES. Mr. PLATT. It strikes me the Senator begs the question a little when he removes the st.ai;ion from 10 miles this side of Chicago to 500 1\IoND.A.Y, Apr-il 26, 1886. miles, because, if the station is 10 miles this side of Chicago, and he TbeHousemetat12o'clockni. Prayer bytheCbaplain, Rev. W. H. insists that a car-load of freight shall go from that little inconsequen _MILBURN, D. D. tial station to New York at the same price that the thousand or two The Journal "of Saturday's proceedings was read. thousand or ten thousand car-loads a day go from Chicago, then he is reducing the rate practically to the s.'l.me rate per mile from the station CORRECTION. 10 miles 'this side of Chicago. l\1r ...WARNER, of Ohio. If I heard aright the reading of the·J onrnal Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to ask the Senator from Connecticut the statement that I asked unanimoUS" consent to call up a bill for the wilether he does not think that it would be an improvement to amend construction of a bridge over the Ohio River is an error. The RECORD the bill by ins_erting, in line 6 of section 4, after the word ''departure,'' shows that it was called up by the gentleman from Nebraska [~I.r. the words "or to the same point of destination;" so that the section WEAVER]. would then read: The SPEAKER. Th<:' bill was called up by the gentleman from N e That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any braska [l\1r. WEAVER]. If the Journal is in error the correction will greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or be made. property subject to the provisions of this act for a shorter than for a longer dis The Journal was then approved. tance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the Sl'me originnl point of departure, or to the same point of destination. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. PLATT. I do not think without reflection upon it that I am By unanimous consent leave of absence was granted as follows: quite ready to answer that question, and I am not in charge of the bill.· To Mr.

Load more