Newspaper Page Text
Adamson on Freight Rates
Notable Speech in Congress by 4th Dis-
* trict Representative.
ATT TtIDK OK PKMOCHATH
In discussing tin* lull and ex-
plaining tlie attitude of the dem-
crats toward railroad regulation
legislation, Judge Adamson said:
“Mr. Chairman, ever since the
courts emasculated the long and
short haul clause of the act to
regulate commerce and destroyed
the efficiency of the interstate
commerce commission, by ruling
that it hud no delegated power to
make valid orders affecting trans
portation, the people have been
demanding remedial legislation to
carry out the purposes of the law.
The. regulation of carriers by gov
ernment is not a new experiment.
Many of the states have effective
commissions and laws. As the
states charter and clothe the cor
porations with equasi public
functions, both the right and duty
devolve upon the state to protect
the people by controlling and reg
ulating the exercise of those func
tions, rights and powers.
“Neither the privileges granted
nor the control exercised can ex
tend beyond the borders of a
Htate. The framers of our consti
tution, however, made ample pro.
vision to meet nil the necessities
of interstate commerce. Although
no railroad had ever boon dreamed
those giant minds, referring all
things to general principles, lib
eral, correct and eternal, realiz
ing the conditions and inevitable
development of our country, and
the genius of the splendid govern
ment they wore forming for ages
of beneficent operation, piovided
that the states delegate to the fed
eral government the power and
duty ‘to regulate commerce among
the states, etc.,’ so tlmt. where
the power and duty of the state
ns to commerce and the jurisdic
tion of the federal government at
taches, with powers that are
plenary and duties that are im
perative.
“They relate not exclusively to
railroads, but apply to every in
strumentality, everything and
everybody, in any wise connected
with business intended to affect
more than one state, district or
territory. The man who peddles
with a pack, the wagoner on the
highway, or the pack horse on t he
trail; the commodity, no mutter
where originat ing: the terminal,
wherever or however built, or oper
ated ; the private ear, under what
ever contract used—are all alike
subject- t'> t Ins constitutional pow
er of the general government
whenever in any wav connected
with traffic between different
status, territories and districts,
REASON or COMM K Ke K el.ACSK.
“The commerce clause of
the constitution, like some
others, originated in fear ol dis
crimination. It was never ordain
ed ns an instrument of unfairness
or injustice. It- authorizes con
gress to prevent one line or person
or commodity or locality or in
terest from destroying another
through artificial and unfair
means. It. forbids such destruc
tion through nullifying rightful
advantages of one to transfer its
importance to another. All locali
ties, markets, persons, commodi
ties and interests should have tair
and like treatment as to rates,
regulations, and practices, ac
cording to conditions, the variety
and dissimilarity of which, in
this great country, blessed with
such great and diverse com
merce, make sameness and uni
formity absolutely impossible.
“Though often and long im
portuned with ‘line upon line and
precept upon precept,’ begging
for fair treatment, the carriers
have ignored the cries of the pou
ffe and failed and refused to de-
|»t, from their unjust practices
when most politely advised
tlio interstate com-
which,
■BHH^^struction of tie- law.
to do anything but
advise. Ho it. appears that further
legislation is absolutely necessary,
and the carriers have their own
obduracy and greed to thank for
forcing the people to resort to
such legislation. The people arc
patient and seldom complain, hut
when they are driven to complain
they are generally right. They
will secure the legislation some
time. It is said that at this time
their demand is to be appeased,
while the fears of the carriers are
allayed at the same time, by pass
ing through this house, ‘under
whip and spur’ and without op
portunity of amendment, the bill
reported by a majority of the com
mittee. If it is true that the
matter is to end for this congress
with the action of tiie house, I
concede that the question of
amendment is perhaps immaterial.
“But I am persuaded from the
humorous remarks of certain dis
tinguished ffiulors hero, and oth
er recent circumstances, that it
must ho a joke, It is true that the
emphasis placed on the words
‘this house’ by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr, tirosvenor) were
noticeable when he declared that,
the majority had determined to
puss the majority bill through
this house. I wondered why the
republican party, which boasts
‘that it does t ilings,’ had not al
so determined to pass it through
both houses. It lias a larger ma
jority in the other house than in
this, I am sure they would find
no democratic obstruction. And,
then, it would not even bo neces
sary to gag the minority with a
rule. By tile way, if time is im
portant, and there was a real pur
pose to legislate, opportunity for
amendment, being denied any
way, throe days could have been
saved in Huh house for use in the
other. Debate can have n » effect
on results in this bouse under the
rule adopted. The vote might bet
ter have been taken yesterday, so
as to expedite legislation, if legis
lation were intended. Of course
the republicans know this, and 1
hope they were not seeking delay.
Republican bluster here may fool
some people when it. becomes nec
essary for the majority and ad
ministration to explain the dere
liction of their party on the rate
question during this congress, I
have never heard them accused of
not being smart and shifty.
ACTION KOItCKO UV DEMOCRATS.
“1 was really pained at some of
the things said by majority lead'
ers. Mr. Townsend, appealed to
us to eschew partisanship and co
operate with them, and our hearts
yearned to do so. But the gentle
man from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Dal/ell, had cruelly intimated
that they did not need the help
of democrats. I have no doubt he
meant to say did not need it to
pass the bill through the house
and did not want it. at all.
“My opiuion is that whether
wanted by them or not, our ac
tivity will have compelled anv ad
vanced action they take, whether
it becomes a law or not. The an
ticipations of the gentleman from
Ohio are correct. If this bill be
comes a law the world would give
us credit for foicing .action wheth
er we claim it or not. If you do
not complete the legislation the
country will damn you for tritliug
with so important, a subject and
preventing action. Through our
persistent agitation all have about
agreed that there should be addi
tional legislation. Both parties
now want it. The president also
now w ants it. The man who should
have been president for the last
eight years wants it. All who wish
to be president, or to receive any
other office, want it. All the peo
ple want it: and even the railroad
presidents want it, and are in
vading the cftpitol, the white
house, and the public press to
make known their anxiety. Then,
let us not stop with the sneaker’s
adjuration to pass ‘some kind of
bill’ ‘through this house only,’
but let us enact a good and eff ect
ive amendment to the law. What
shall it be?
“The substitute offered by the
minority, notwithstanding some
inconsiderate criticism by persons
who could, like ourselves, by fur
ther study learn more of the sub
ject, provides substantially what
is needed to make the present law-
effective and contains substantial
ly wlmt lias been asked for in the
thousands of appeals made to
congress, and contains nothing
further. Considered in the light
of existing law, which is necessary
to safe and intelligent legislation,
it is by far the best considered,
the best prepared,the lest matur
ed, the best constructed, the most
practical and the most intelligent
ly adapted to the situation and
the necessity of the case of all the
bills ever prepared. Nor bus any
suggestion emanated from either
side of the house or the press out
lining a more effective or more
appropriate Dill to meet the needs
of the people for amenendment of
existing law.
“The minority members of the
cominttee do not claim perfec
tion for the bill. They regret t hat
it is not better, and it is not im
modest for them to believe it
would have been better if all who
had studied and understood the
subject ever more imperfectly
than themselves had refrained
from embarrassing them at a
most critical period of their la
bors, when tactical judgment was
needed. If the substitute Imd not
been better we might have secured
better legislation if any at all,
which six democrats on our coin
mil tee regarded ns more impor
tant on ibis particular subject
than mere party advantage. Let
no sensation monger interpret
this as a (ling at the minority
leader, lie has been in consulta
tion and accord with us since long
before this spasmodic ebullition
of fervor attacked the republican
party. The people have not de
manded revolution: evolution .is
making a system of controlling
commerce.
REKKUTP IN THE SYSTEM.
“Defects in the system demand
attention. Necessary amendments
should meet the demand ami
notliingel.se. Any man with an
active mind or imagination can
suggest many things that might
please bis fancy, but no man can
got all In 1 wants, and it is certain
that in our substitute we propose
more than we will ever secure
from this or any other republican
congress Nor do we go on and add
destroying clauses to undo the
remedial provision in our bill,
nor burdensome and unasked-for
provision to vex, encumber and
complicate the system. Wo >Jsav
tlic most necessary things and
stop. As compared with the ma
jority bill we appeal to the judg
ment of the people. We have al
ready received the approval of the
press.
“Both the proposed bills under
consideration offer much that is
good. The minority bill contains
practical remedies, valuable when
taken in connection with existing
law. The majority bill starts out
by proposing substantially much
the same thing, but instead of
stopping where the minority bill
does it goes further, coupling
therewith saving clauses, which
undo very much of the parts
which might otherwise be valua
ble, and adding some provisions
wholly unnecessary, troublesome,
and expensive. Neither of the
bills specifically refer to terminals
nor private car lines. If, as claim
ed by the gentleman from Michi
gan, the first section of our bill
may be construed to apply to
them, it is equally true of the first
section of the other. I do not con
cur with him. The truth is the
subject of private car lines, being
regarded as a separate matter be
fore our committee acted on the
pending bills, had without a sin
gle objection been referred to a
sub-committee, supposed to he
competent, which is actively con
sidering the subject. It will prob
ably favor some method of retain
ing private cars and regulating
their use, rather than outlawing
and destroying them. It is also
probable that whatever bill may
be recommended by that sub
committee wili finally become a
law as soon as either of the bills
now under consideration here.
RAIl.ROADS “touched up.”
“The private car companies and
and the railroads justify their
wrongful practices by the plea
that but for those cars no other
facilities could be secured,and the
fruit and cattle not be moved.
Then they prove the truth of the
plea by making contracts which
shut out all other facilities. Like
pool, helpless, poverty-stricken
things, the railroads complain
that they cannot furnish facilities,
and that the car lines, command
ing the situation, take the carri
ers by the throat and impose such
terms ns they choose to dictate
That being the case, the law must
interpose to protect and relieve
the poor, weak carriers from high-
waymeii who hold them up. Vet
the private car companies are
making statements before our
committee in the nature of pauper
affidavits, showing that they don’t
make a cent, but are operating
through pure philanthropy. Ac
cording to some of their showings,
1 fear that government regulation
would be followed by frequent
and liberal claims on their part
for shortage in revenue and de
mands to make good their deficit
in such patriotic efforts to serve
the public.
“The argument of the private
car lines is the same always urged
iu behalf of monopolies, special
privileges and tyranny: Absolute
control, shutt ing out all compe
tition, handling both supply and
demand, calculating accurately
may provide facilities exact as
well as adequate, thereby securing
economy, and thereby also render
ing service at once more profitable
t<> the monopoly and better and
cheaper to the people.
“While all know that to bo fal
lacious, yet many support the
theory by practice and acquies
cence, the most effective way. to
support anything. The exclusive
contracts are obviously crimina
umler the anti-trust law. Besides,
both they and the terminal sub
terfuges are very thinly disguised
devises for rebates: but if further
legislation is necessary ii should
be lmd, even if the president, in
his patriotic cooperation with the
democrats, should by the unfaitli-
1 ill conduct of the republican ma
jority be compelled to call an ex
tra session of congress to enact
this and other needed rate legisla
tion. The two bills supported by
tlio majority and minority agre?
substantially as to conferring the
power to correct an erroneous rate
by denouncing an unfair rate and
declaring a fair one. Both are
substantially identical us to con
necting joint rates, but the min
ority lull in s< ct-iou 8 makes valu
able provisions as to competitive
points and intermediate points on
the same line, offering amends for
the emasculation of tne long and
short haul clause. The penalty
clauses are very similar.
PURPOSE OK DEMOCRATIC HIM,.
“The minority bill proposes for
the rate to take effect after twen
ty days and remain in effect and
force until set aside by the final
judgment of the courts. The ma
jority bili provides that the order
become effective after thirty days,
if it is not prevented from ever
going into force, under the ample
provisions and invitations of sec
tion 1-1 of their bill. A rate de
clared and suspended would be a
mockery, permitting the .carrier
to go on receiving and appropriat
ing the ill -gotten proceeds of a
rate already denounced as unjust.
No provision of law nor order 4 of
the court for maintaining the sta
tus quo has been suggested that
will do justice in the premises.
“To continue to collect the un
just rate from all shippers indis
criminately or promiscuously
would iutliet irreparable lujury.
If the shipper paid it ’he would
soon pay out more than his capi
tal. Even if eventually refunded
lie and his associates might in the
meantime have been driven out of
business and the commerce of the
town destroyed by the discrimina
tion. If the shipper pays it and
adds it to his prices, he distrib
utes the burden among his cus
tomers und gradually drives them
away from his trade Iu any
event, if the order is finally up
held by the courts, either the
shipper or his customers have
been robbed of thut much money,
to recover which would require a
multiplicity of vexations and ex
pensive suits. The rate ought to
remain in force, as provided by the
minority bill, until set aside fi
nally by the courts. That would
offer an inducement to the car
riers to press their suits to an ear
ly termination. The majority bill
permits the commission to raise
lower rates.
THE COMMERCE COMMMI88ION.
“The minority bill forbids the
commission to advance a rate,
tiled and published as profitable
and satisfactory, but there is no
restriction as to the carriers ad
vancing the rates according to ex
isting law. It is best to prohibit
the commission from raising a
rate, for otherwise injury might
be inflicted by the enforced di
version of traffic from markets
and routes natural and easy of
patronage to others not so highly
favored. Both hills profess to
retain the present commerce com
mission, but the majority pro
position would so change it as to
place it beyond recognition. That
bill would increase the member
ship, the salaries, and the terms
of office, all of which is entirely
gratuitous, unless imposed as a
condition of conferring the rate-
making power. Nobody lias ever
suggested any change in these re
spects. The present salary, $7,
600, is large enough to secure
competent talent and compensate
for the service. The term six
years is long enough t<> comport
with the American idea of official
responsibility.
“The membership is full largo
for efficiency. The only com
plaints filed are to the effect that
sufficient poweFjhas not been con
ferred on the commission to make
and enforce its orders. Neither
bill provides any statutory appeal
nor new procedure. Both rely on
existing methods; on the one
hand to proceed in the courts to
enforce orders and punish viola
tions, and, on the other hand, a
dissatisfied carrier may proceed
in court to review, arrest and an
nul the order of the commission.
The majority bill, however, seeks
to create a new court with special
and exclusive jurisdiction over
cases effecting transportation and
to appoint five more federal judg
es for life with large salaries.
JUDGES AND COURTS ENOUGH.
“We have judges ami courts
enough. The expensive increase j
proposed is wholly unnecessary.
When we vitalize the commission
by empowering it to make and en
force its orders certainty and ce
lerity of justice will reduce liti
gation. Carriers go not to law
unless they haye reason to hope
for ultimate success or for such
long delay as would be equiva
lent thereto. Knowing that
speedy judgment and sure cor
rection would follow wrongdoing,
they would soon conclude that it
is cheaper and better to i zoid
trouble, expense and punishment
By acting in the first instance
with more regard for the rights of
the people. If effective legisla
tion be enacted, the additional
judges provided would find little
to do. In the hearings before our
committee it was the opinion of
both Mr. Bacon and Judge Cow
an, as well as Mr. Commissioner
Clements, that existing procedure
is sufficient and there is no ne
cessity for additional courts or
judges.
“When our committee began
the study of this question, seve
ral years ago, some of us were of
the opinion that prevailing evils
were mainly due to rebates and
delays in courts: so a couple of
makeshifts were devised, one of
them aimed at rebates, which is
said to have accomplished much
good; the other pretending to
provide of expediting eas(-s. Un
thinking people believed that it
did afford means to expedite all
litigatiou affecting commerce,
but somehow it only applied to
cases where the United States
were complainants, and even then
on motion of the attorney general
only. The great number of cases
brought to resist or annul orders
of the commission were not affect
ed at ull by that- act. To supply
that omission and in striking
contrast with the unwise provis
ions of section I t of the majority
bill, the minority proposes that
without any motion in court, ev
ery case, whether to enforce or
resist an ord“r of the commission,
takes precedence over all except-
criminal cases in every court to
which such case may go.
COURTS OPEN TO CARRIERS.
“1 nder either bill the carrier
may invoke the power of the fed
eral court—existing courts ac
cording to the minority, but un
der the majority bill the new and
special court. The majority bill
provides that the court may hear
new evidence, a wrong somewhat
mitigated by limiting the evi
dence to such as was beyond rea
sonable diligence in the hearing
before the commission. It still
remains unfair, unjust and im
proper to hear additional testi
mony and vacate the action of
the commission on evidence the
commission never heard. The
carriers should be required to pre
sent their entire defense before-
the commission, and if, prior to
a court taking jurisdiction, ma
terial facts should] be discovered,
not previously accessible to dili
gence, the commission should Le-
authorized to reopen the case,
hear tlie new testimony, and
again make up its order. If that
is still unsatisfactory to the ob
jector, then authorize the court to-
take up and dispose of the mat
ter upon the law and the record
of the case before the commission,
not undertaking to determine dis-
p tiled facts.
“If the new evidence is discov
ered after the court has taken
jtirisdiction, require that the court
remand the matter to tne com
mission. that new evidence shall
be heard and the case be passed
upon again ‘ by the commission.
The minority bill requires the
court to hear no testimony, but to
decide the case upon the law und
the evidence before the commis
sion. It appears tlint in practi
cally all the cases in which the-
the orders of the commission
have been set aside such action of
the court was based on evidence
which had never been submitted
to the commission. The proposi
tion of the majority to tax the
cost against the losing party is-
discussed in- a letter from J. C.
| Hundley, of Fort Smith, Ark., in
I the following language:
COSTS OK SUITS.
“ ‘You will note a provision for
the costs of suits before the com
merce court to be]taxed against the
unsuccessful party after the man
ner followed in the circuit court
of the United States in cases be
tween private litigants.
“ ‘If this section 19 permitted
to become a part of the law, it
will result in very great injustice
and discrimination to the average
shipper and will serve as, practi
cally, a barrier to the proper hear
ing and investigation of real or
imaginary rate discrimination.
The average shipper would hesi
tate and in many cases tail to ask
for an investigation or review on
this account. Adjustments of
of this character are radically
different from the adjustment of '
contentions between private in
dividuals.
“ ‘It should be the object of
the government to protect the
small shipper against discrimina
tions and unjust methods in the
same manner as the state or fed
eral government protects its sub
jects against tort3 and crime.
“ ‘Further, the machinery for
this purpose should be so arrang
ed that any shipper, however
(CONTINUED ON RAGE SEVEN.)