INTERSTATE COMMERCE
At the time I am writing these lines, no question of governmental
policy occupies so prominent a place in the thoughts of the people
as that of controlling the steady growth and extending influence
of corporate power, and of regulating its relations to the public.
And there are no corporations whose proceedings so directly affect
every citizen in the daily pursuit of his business as the corporations
engaged in transportation.
Of the many new forms introduced into every department of civilized
life during the past century, none have brought about more marvellous
changes than the railroad, as an instrumentality of commerce. The
substitution of steam and electricity for animal power was one of
the most important events in our industrial history. The commercial,
social, and political relations of the nations, have been revolutionized
by the development of improved means of communication and
transportation. With this changed condition of affairs in the
commercial world came new questions of the greatest importance for
the consideration of those upon whom devolved the duty of making
the nation's laws.
In the early days of railroads, the question was not how to regulate,
but how to secure them; but in the early seventies their importance
grew to such proportions that the railroads threatened to become
the masters and not the servants of the people. There were all
sorts of abuses. Railroad officers became so arrogant that they
seemed to assume that they were above all law; rebating and
discrimination were the rule and not the exception. It was the
public indignation against long continued discrimination and undue
preferences which brought about the Granger Movement, which resulted,
seventeen years later, in the enactment of the first Interstate
Commerce Act.
With the Granger Movement of the early seventies, and the passage
of State laws for the control of railroad transportation, began
the discussion which is still before Congress and the public as
one of the live issues of the day.
It so happens that I have been intimately connected with this
subject from the time I was serving as Speaker of the Illinois
House of Representatives in 1873.
The State of Illinois, like most of the Western States, had a law
on the subject of railroad regulation; but it was ineffective, and
the commission under it had no practical power. I appointed the
committee of the House of Representatives of the Illinois Legislature
in 1873, of which John Oberly, of Cairo, Illinois, was a member,
and it was that committee that reported to the House the bill which
finally became a law, known as the Railroad and Warehouse Law of
1873. It is still the existing law in Illinois, and was for many
years regarded as one of the broadest and most far-reaching of
State enactments.
After I became Governor of the State, in 1877, I appointed a new
Railroad and Warehouse Commission under the new law, and naturally
took a deep interest in its work. During my term as Governor a
resolution was adopted by the General Assembly really looking to
the abolition of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, but on its
face inquiring of me as Governor for information concerning the
cost of maintaining the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and the
benefits, if any, of the commission, to the people of the State of
Illinois.
To this resolution I promptly responded in a message to the General
Assembly, dated February 17, 1879, which in part I take the liberty
of quoting here, because never afterwards in Illinois, so far as
I know, was there any movement to abolish the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission and repeal the Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Act.
After giving the pay and expenses of the board, I continued:
"To answer this portion of the resolution in a manner satisfactory
to myself would include a recital of the many attempts that have
been made in this and other countries to control railroad corporations
by legislation. In a paper of this kind such a reply can not be
made. I must therefore be satisfied with a glance at the advance
that resulted in the enactment of the railroad and warehouse laws
of this State.
"Since the passage of the laws creating the railroad and warehouse
commission, in 1871, Illinois has made very important advances
toward the solution of the railroad problem.
"The questions involved in this problem have not only been before
the people of this State, but in other States and countries.
"In England, after the railroad had become a fact, it was recognized
as a public highway. The right of Parliament to fix rates for the
transportation of passengers and freight by railroad corporations
was therefore asserted, and schedules of rates were put into their
charters. Those familiar with the subject need not be told that
the attempt to establish rates in this manner was a failure. Then
it was asserted that competition, if encouraged by the Government,
would prove a remedy for the abuses with which the railroads were
charged. The suggestion was acted upon. The Government encouraged
the construction of competing lines. As a result, rates fell.
Competition, however, finally began to entail disaster upon the
competitors and compel them to become allies to escape destruction.
The competitors combined; railroads were consolidated; rival lines
were united, and competition was thus destroyed. The danger of
great combinations of this kind, not only to the business interests
of the country, but also to the State, was at once suggested, and
occasioned alarm. This alarm resulted in a public opinion that
the Government should own the railroads. But consolidation, to
the surprise of the prophets of evil, did not result in higher
rates. On the contrary, lower rates and higher dividends resulted.
"Thus by a logical process of attempt and failure to control railroad
corporations, the conclusion was reached that wise policy required
permission to such corporations to operate their railroads in their
own way upon ordinary business principles. But at the same time
a board of commissioners was wisely created and authorized to hear
and determine complaints against railroad corporations, and to
exercise other important powers. This board was created about five
years ago; and the most notable feature in its career, says Charles
Francis Adams, junior, is the very trifling call that seems to have
been made upon it. The cases which come before it are neither
numerous nor of great importance. It would, however, be unwholly
safe to conclude from this fact that such a tribunal is unnecessary.
On the contrary, it may be confidently asserted that no competent
board of railroad commissioners clothed with the peculiar power of
the English board, will, either there or anywhere else, have many
cases to dispose of. The mere fact that a tribunal is there, that
a machinery does exist for the prompt and final decision of that
class of questions put an end to them. They no longer arise.
"The process through which the public mind in America has passed
on the railroad question is not dissimilar to that through which
the public mind of England passed. But here competition was relied
on from the first. To all who asked for them railroad charters
were granted. The result has been the construction of railroads
in all parts of the country, many of them through districts of
country without business, or even population, as well as between
all business centres and through populous, fertile, and well
cultivated regions. Free trade in railroad building, and the too
liberal use of municipal credit in their aid, has induced the
building of some lines which are wholly unnecessary, and which
crowd, duplicate, and embarrass lines previously built and which
were fully adequate to the needs of the community.
"In Illinois, railroad enterprises have been particularly numerous
and have made the State renowned for having the most miles of
railroad track--for being the chief railroad State.
"But competition did not result according to public anticipation.
The competing corporations worked without sufficient remuneration
at competing points, and, to make good the losses resulting, were
often guilty of extortion at the non-competing points. They
discriminated against persons and places. Citizens protested
against these abuses in vain. The railroad corporations, when
threatened with the power of the Government, indulged in the language
of defiance, and attempted to control legislation to their own
advantage. At last public indignation became excited against them.
They did not heed it. They believed the courts would be their
refuge from popular fury. The indignation of the people expressed
itself in many ways and finally found utterance in the Constitution
of 1870. In this Constitution may be found all the phases of
opinion on the railroad question through which the English mind
has run. The railroad is declared a public highway. The establishment
of reasonable rates of charges is directed; competition between
railroads is recognized as necessary to the public welfare; and
the General Assembly is required to pass laws to correct abuses
and to prevent unjust discrimination and extortion in the rates
and passenger tariffs on the different railroads of the State, and
enforce such laws by adequate penalties to the extent, if necessary
for that purpose, of forfeiture of their property and franchises.
"The Constitution did more than this. To correct abuses of the
interests of the farmers from whose fields warehousemen in combination
with corporate common carriers had been drawing riches, it declared
all elevators or structures where grain or other property was stored
for a compensation, public warehouses, and expressly directed the
General Assembly to pass laws for the government of warehouses,
for the inspection of grain, and for the protection of producers,
shippers, and receivers of grain and produce.
"Promptly after the adoption of the Constitution the Legislature
attempted to give these provisions vitality by the enactment of
laws to carry them out. One of these created the Railroad and
Warehouse Commission and imposed on it important duties. Another
was an act to regulate public warehouses and warehousing. By this
act other important duties were imposed upon the Railroad and
Warehouse Commission."
After reviewing the attempt to enforce these laws the message
continues:
"In 1873, the present law to prevent extortion and unjust discrimination
in rates charged for the transportation of passengers and freight
on railroads in this State was passed. It was prepared and enacted
with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of _Illinois_
vs. _C. and A. R. R._, fresh in the minds of the members of the
General Assembly, and every suggestion made by the court was
observed.
"The Commission since the enactment of this statute has brought
many suits against railroad corporations for violation of the law."
After reviewing the various cases I proceeded:
"In 1871, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission was established.
Its creation was resisted by both railroad corporations and public
warehousemen, and after its organization they treated it with little
consideration. They refused to recognize its authority, but after
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring
the doctrine that the Government may regulate the conduct of its
citizens to each other, and, when necessary, for the public good,
the manner in which each shall use his own property, the railroad
corporations and public warehousemen began to grow less determined
in their opposition to the attempts to control them, until at this
time there is very little opposition. They now give prompt attention
to requests of the Commission for the correction of abuses called
to its notice by their patrons; and thus the Commissioners not only
settle questions arising between railroad corporations and those
who patronize them, but it may as truthfully be said of this as of
the English or Massachusetts Commission, that the very fact of its
existence has put an end to many of the abuses formerly practised
by such corporations, and which were angrily complained of by the
people. . . .
"It is a curious fact that the conclusion reached by the English
statesmen in 1874, was reached in Illinois in 1873; the conclusion
that railroad companies ought to have the right to control their
own affairs, fix their own rates of transportation, be free from
meddlesome legislation, and, as has been said, work out their own
destiny in their own way, just so long as they show a reasonable
regard for the requirements of the community."
After analyzing the law of 1873, referring to the procedure under
it, to the decision of the courts, and the fact that the Railroad
and Warehouse Commissioners made under it a schedule of maximum
rates of charges, I said:
"The schedule will require revision from time to time, and this
work can only be done by men who can give it their whole time, and
who will become students of the great subject of transportation.
"Before action by the Supreme Court it has not been deemed advisable
that the Commissioners should revise the schedule, and put the
State thereby to what might be unnecessary expense; nor that they
should multiply suits under the law of 1873, against railroad
companies for similar offences to those set up in the cases now
pending.
"Ever since its organization the board has been putting into
operation new laws founded upon old principles applied to new facts
and it has been compelled to walk with slow step. It has been
required, in the assertion of its authority to go from one court
to another, and await the approval by the Supreme Court of the
legislation directed by the Constitution of 1870.
"It has won a victory in the warehouse controversy and secured the
judicial endorsement of doctrines which in this age of concentration
and monopoly, are absolutely necessary to the public welfare. . . .
"Leaving out of view the benefits that have resulted to the people
by the mere fact of the existence of the Board, which has prevented
many abuses that would have been committed save for its presence
in the State, it has been at work, and useful. It has perfected
the organization of the Grain Inspection Department at Chicago; it
has gathered statistics in reference to transportation that are of
very great benefit to the public; it has adopted the policy of
railroad examinations with a view to security of life; and, in my
judgment, the authority of the Commission ought to be enlarged so
as to enable it to compel the railroad companies to improve their
tracks and bridges, when, in the judgment of the Commission, such
portions of railroads become unsafe. The Railroad Commissioners
act as arbitrators between the railroad companies and their patrons;
and in the Commissioners' report they say they have succeeded in
settling most of the complaints made to them in a manner satisfactory
to all the parties to the controversies.
"In my judgment if the Commission were dispensed with by the
Legislature, difficulties would soon arise, agitation would commence
again, and controversies would run riot. New legislation would
follow, another board of some kind would soon be created, and the
track we have just passed over would be again travelled by the
people's representatives.
"The Board should be sustained in the interest of all the people.
Instead of being destroyed it should be strengthened. It should
not only have the authority with which it is now vested, but more.
It should be made a legal arbitrator in all matters of controversy
between railroad companies and warehouses and their patrons; and
it should be required to make examination of roads, and be invested
with authority to compel reparation of unsafe and defective bridges,
culverts, track, and rolling-stock.
"(Signed) S. M. Cullom,
"Governor."
My experience, as Chief Executive of the State, with the practical
workings of the Railroad and Warehouse Law, clearly demonstrated
to me that a State statute, no matter how drastic it might be, was
utterly inadequate to meet the evils complained of, and that
effective regulation must be Federal and not State, or probably
Federal and State combined. Some of the States had attempted to
exercise control over interstate traffic which originated in the
State, but it seemed perfectly clear from a long line of decisions
of the Supreme Court, beginning with _Gibbons_ vs. _Ogden_, and
continuing with _Reading Railway_ vs. _Pennsylvania; Baltimore and
Ohio_ vs. _Maryland_, and many other cases, that the States as such
had no control over interstate commerce. But it was not until our
own Illinois case (_Wabash Railroad_ vs. _Illinois_), that the
Supreme Court settled it once and for all. It was clearly stated
in that case that the power of Congress was exclusive, and the
Court said that, "notwithstanding whatever _dicta_ might appear in
other cases, this court holds now and has never consciously held
otherwise, that a statute of a State intended to regulate or tax
or to impose any restriction upon the transmission of persons or
property from one State to another is not within the class of
legislation which the States may enact in the absence of legislation
by Congress, and that such statutes are void."
This decision of the Supreme Court was rendered just about the time
I was elected to the United States Senate, and I then and there
determined that I would make it one of my great aims in the Senate
to secure the enactment of a Federal statute regulating interstate
commerce.
It would seem astonishing that the Commerce clause of the Constitution
should have remained dormant, as it did for nearly a century.
Aside from two unimportant acts, no statute had been passed under
it from the beginning of the Government until the Act to Regulate
Commerce was passed in 1887.
Not even a serious attempt had been made to pass an act for the
regulation of interstate commerce. Bills were introduced from
Congress to Congress and laid aside; some investigations were made
--as, for instance, the Windom investigation by a select committee
of the House in 1873--but it all came to naught. It seemed that
no one man, either in the Senate or House, had made it his business
to secure the passage of such an act.
Very fortunately, as I see it now, when I first came to the Senate,
I received no important committee assignments. Having been in
public life for many years, member of Congress, Governor of my
State, I naturally felt that I would be properly taken care of
without appealing to my older colleagues for assistance. Even my
own colleague, General Logan, did not interest himself in the
matter. I attended the caucus when the committee announcements
were made, and observing that I received nothing of any consequence,
I addressed the caucus and protested that I had not been treated
properly. Later Senator Edmunds resigned his place as a regent of
the Smithsonian Institution and I was appointed to succeed him in
that position.
I was assigned, however, to the Committee on Railroads--which was
then what we know now in the Senate as a non-working committee.
I determined that the committee should have something to do, and
I immediately became active in securing the consideration of an
act for the regulation of interstate commerce. I drew up a bill,
introduced it, had it referred to the committee, and finally secured
its consideration and report to the Senate. No one paid any
particular attention to what I was doing until then. When the bill
was reported to the Senate, and I was pushing and urging and doing
everything in my power to secure its consideration, Senator Allison,
always my friend, always wanting to assist me in any way in his
power, came to me one day and said:
"Cullom, we know nothing about this question; we are groping in
the dark; and I believe that there ought to be a select committee
of the Senate appointed to investigate the question, to go out
among the people, take testimony, and find out what they know about
it,--what the experts know, what the railroad officials know, what
public opinion generally is, and report their conclusions to the
Senate at the beginning of the next session. I am willing to help
you secure the passage of a resolution with that end in view."
This was perfectly agreeable to me and, on March 17, 1885, a
resolution of the Senate, introduced by me, was adopted. This
resolution provided--
"That a select committee of five Senators be appointed to investigate
and report upon the subject of the regulation of the transportation
by railroad and water routes in connection or in competition with
said railroads of freights and passengers between the several
States, with authority to sit during the recess of Congress, and
with power to summon witnesses, and to do whatever is necessary
for a full examination of the subject, and report to the Senate on
or before the second Monday in December next. Said committee shall
have power to appoint a clerk and stenographer, and the expenses
of such investigation shall be paid from the appropriation for
expenses of inquiries and investigations ordered by the Senate."
The committee, of which I was made chairman, was appointed in due
course, my colleagues being Senator O. H. Platt, of Connecticut;
Senator Warner Miller, of New York; Senator Arthur Pugh Gorman, of
Maryland; and Senator Isham G. Harris, of Tennessee. Leaving out
any reference to myself, the selection was regarded as having been
most judicious and suitable.
And here let me digress to say a few words in reference to my
colleagues on that committee.
Senator Warner Miller was a strong man intellectually, and a good
business man. He had succeeded Senator T. C. Platt on March 4,
1881, and readily took his place in the Senate as one of its
influential members, although he served but one term. He was a
valuable man as a member of the committee, and took a very prominent
part in the debates preceding the passage of the act.
Senator Gorman had a remarkable public career. Without the advantages
of influential family, without wealth, with only limited education,
through his own exertions alone he arose from the position of a
page in the United States Senate to the position of Senator and
leader of his party in the Senate. He was a _protégé_, friend,
and follower of that illustrious son of Illinois, Stephen A. Douglas.
He was one of the most sagacious politicians of his day. By his
shrewd management of the Cleveland campaign he secured the defeat
of Mr. Blaine and the election of Mr. Cleveland. His charming
personality, his suavity of manner, his magnetic influence over
men with whom he came into contact, combined with his marked ability,
made it easy for him to retain the difficult position of a leader
of his great party. He enjoyed in the highest degree the respect
and confidence of every Senator with whom he served, on both sides
of the chamber, and specially was his influence felt in securing
the support of the Democratic Senators in the passage of the Act
of 1887.
Senator Harris, of Tennessee, was a very useful member of the
Senate, and was a man possessed of more than ordinary ability.
His ability, perhaps, was not as great as Senator Gorman's, although
he was a very influential and highly respected member of the Senate.
He was a hard worker; and one trait in particular that I remember
about him was, he never failed to attend promptly on time the
meeting of any committee of which he was a member. Indeed, I do
not know of any man with whom I have served in the Senate, aside
from my respected colleague, Senator Frye, who was so punctual.
He was a man of convivial habits, and used to poke considerable
fun at me because I would not drink or play poker. At the time
when the select committee was to meet in Memphis, the home of
Senator Harris, the prominent business men of that place waited on
him and told him they understood a very eminent committee was coming
there in a few days, and they would like to show them some courtesies.
Harris replied that he did not know who would be there; that Senator
Platt would not, and he did not believe Senator Gorman would--in
fact, he did not believe any one would be there, excepting the
chairman and himself; and so far as the chairman, Senator Cullom,
was concerned, they could not do anything for him, as he did not
drink or smoke, and was "one of the damnedest, poorest card-players
he had ever known." So, about all the entertaining they could do
for him would be to show him about the city.
Many amusing stories were told of him. When I called the committee
together, preliminary to starting out on our tour, I told them that
I would be very glad to allow them everything within reason that
was necessary, but the Government would not pay for their whiskey
and cigars. Harris promptly replied: "That's right, Mr. Chairman.
So far as I am concerned, if I can't get my whiskey by standing
around the bar when other people are drinking, I will pay for it
myself."
When the committee were in Minneapolis, we were sitting at a long
table at dinner; I was at one end, and Harris was at the other,
facing me. An old soldier came up to speak to me, and glancing
down toward the other end of the table, he asked: "Is n't that
old Harris of Tennessee?" When I replied that it was, he continued:
"Well, well! The last time I saw him, he was wearing a linen-
duster, riding a mule, and going South like hell."
Harris was a man of the most rigid honesty. He not only rendered
valuable assistance in conducting the investigation, especially
through the South, which section of the country he particularly
represented, but took a prominent part in the debates and generally
performed his full share toward securing the passage of the act.
Of Senator O. H. Platt I have already written.
But to return. Immediately after the adjournment of Congress this
select committee visited Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo,
Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Des Moines, Omaha, Minneapolis, and
St. Paul, where we adjourned to meet in the South. We went to
Memphis first, then to New Orleans and Atlanta, whence we returned
to Washington, where I prepared the report of the committee which
was submitted to the Senate, January 18, 1886.
The committee began its work impressed with the importance of the
duty with which it had been charged, and with each step taken in
prosecuting the inquiry we realized more fully how heavy were the
obstacles to be overcome, how serious were the abuses that existed,
how the public sentiment over the entire country was aroused, and
how difficult it was going to be to frame and secure the passage
of a measure adequate to relieve the situation. After many sessions
and long conferences the select committee finally agreed upon a
bill which, in its opinion, would correct the evils complained of.
Even after the committee had agreed to the bill, I was not entirely
satisfied; I feared the existence of some absurdities, some features,
which the railroads could not possibly comply with; and so I asked
Senator Platt to meet me in New York, previously having arranged
with Mr. Fink and Mr. Blanchard, two of the great railroad men of
their day, and a gentleman representing specially the people's
interests, whose name I do not recall, but who had been interested
in securing regulation in New York and was an expert on the
proposition, to meet with us in that city. We all met as planned.
I stated that I desired to take the bill up with them, section by
section, paragraph by paragraph, and if anything absurd or
impracticable was found, or anything that could not be carried out,
attention should be called to it, and we would discuss it and amend
it if necessary. We went ahead on this line and were arguing over
some proposition, when Mr. Fink got up and remarked: "Let it go;
the whole thing is absurd anyhow." I arose and said that if that
was the attitude of the railroad men, when the committee's only
object was to report to the Senate a fair bill, that the conference
might as well end. The other members of the conference intervened
and said it was not fair that the chairman of the committee should
be treated in this way, that Senator Cullom was acting in absolute
good faith, whereupon Mr. Fink apologized, and the reading was
resumed, and some amendments made where found necessary.
And this incident recalls to mind another aspect of the investigation.
While the select committee was considering the subject, travelling
from city to city, the high railroad officials paid no attention
to us; rather, I might say, they avoided being called before us,
probably considering it a waste of time, as they had no serious
thought that anything would come of the investigation. They
considered the railroads superior to the laws of Congress, and
depended upon their old State charters. In those days they were
the most arrogant set of men in this country; they have since
learned that they are the servants and not the masters of the
people. But when the bill seemed pretty certain to pass, the
attitude of the railroad officials suddenly changed. They came to
Washington and complained that they had not been given the opportunity
to be heard; that it would not be fair under the circumstances to
pass a bill so largely affecting them; and they seemed to be sorely
aggrieved when they could not prevent or delay its passage.
I introduced the bill in the first session of the Forty-ninth
Congress, and after a great deal of difficulty, even with my
colleague, General Logan, against it, finally had it made the
special order. General Logan knew nothing about the subject; he
cared nothing about it, and on one occasion he told me that I would
ruin myself by advocating it.
When I called the bill up for consideration, I was so anxious to
press it along that I did not care to make any general speech,
excepting to explain as carefully and minutely as I could the
various provisions of the measure. I said, in opening:
"I believe I am justified in saying that there is no subject of a
public nature that is before the country about which there is so
great unanimity of sentiment as there is upon the proposition that
the National Government ought in some way to regulate interstate
commerce. The testimony taken by the Committee shows conclusively
to my mind, and I think to every man's mind who reads it, that
there is necessity for some legislation by the National Government,
looking to the regulation of interstate commerce by railroad and
by waterways in connection therewith.
"I believe the time has gone by when it is necessary for any one
to take up the time of the Senate in discussing the proposition
that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. These
questions have been discussed over and over again in Congress, and
the highest judicial tribunals of the country have decided over
and over again that Congress has the power to regulate commerce
among the States. So I do not feel at liberty, if I were disposed,
to occupy the attention of the Senate in discussing the general
subject of whether there is any necessity for our doing anything,
or the question of constitutional right of Congress to pass some
act regulating commerce among the States.
"If the three propositions are correct: that the public sentiment
is substantially unanimous that we should act; that the necessity
for action exists; and that the power of Congress is admitted,--
the only question left is, what Congress ought to do specifically;
in other words, what kind of an act should Congress pass. The
committee has reported a bill which is the best judgment that the
committee had upon the subject."
I then proceeded to explain the bill carefully, section by section,
and concluded by saying:
"I am led to believe that the bill as it stands is perhaps a more
perfect bill on this subject than has ever been introduced in the
Congress of the United States before. There may be many suggestions
of amendment by honorable Senators during the consideration of the
bill; and if any Senator has any suggestion of amendment to make,
of course it is within the privilege of the Senate to adopt it,
but I am very anxious that this bill shall be as promptly considered
as possible, and as promptly acted upon and passed as possible, if
in the judgment of the Senate it ought to be passed at all.
"As the Senate know, this subject has been up for consideration
from one term of Congress to another, almost time out of mind;
until the people of the United States have come almost to believe
that there is no real purpose on the part of Congress to do anything
more than introduce and report bills and discuss them a while, and
then let them die before any final action is reached upon them.
"I said in the outset that in my judgment there is no public question
before the American people to-day about which there is greater
unanimity of sentiment than there is upon the proposition that the
Congress of the United States ought to enact some law looking to
the regulation of commerce among the several States, and I trust
without taking up the time of the Senate longer that every Senator
will give attention to this subject until we can pass some bill
and get it to the other branch of Congress in the hope that before
this session adjourns we shall get some legislation on this subject
that will be of some service to the people and reasonably satisfy
public opinion."
I pressed the bill on the attention of the Senate every day, never
allowing it to be displaced where I could avoid it. I was determined
that some bill should be passed at that session. The debate was
long and interesting. There were comparatively few set speeches.
It was a hot, running debate almost from the beginning, participated
in by the strongest men in the Senate, many of whom were the ablest
men of their day. Senators Aldrich, Edmunds, Evarts, Gorman, Hoar,
Ingalls, Manderson, Miller, Mitchell, Morrill, Platt, Sewell,
Sherman, Spooner, Teller, Vest, Morgan, Cameron, Dawes, Frye, Hale,
Harrison, and Voorhees all engaged in it.
The bill was finally passed May 12, 1886.
In the meantime, Mr. Reagan, of Texas, who had been urging a bill
in the House, and had it up for consideration during the same time
the Senate bill was being considered, passed his bill, which differed
essentially from the Senate bill. Both bills went to conference
together, Mr. Reagan being the head of the conferees on the part
of the House, and I being the head of the conferees on the part of
the Senate. Then came the real struggle, the two measures remaining
in conference from June to the following January. The contention
finally centred on the pooling provision. Reagan had yielded on
nearly everything else; but Platt of Connecticut was bound there
should be no prohibition against pooling. Reagan affirmed that
the whole matter would have to drop, that he would never yield on
that. I came back and consulted the leaders in the Senate, Allison
among others, and they advised me to yield; that the country demanded
a bill, and I had better accept Reagan's anti-pooling prohibition
section than offer no measure at all--which I did.
Whether it is right or wrong, I do not know even to this day. I
have never been quite certain in my mind on the question of pooling,
and it is still a subject on which legislators and statesmen differ.
But one thing does seem certain--public sentiment is as much opposed
to pooling to-day as it was twenty years ago. There was a great
fight in the Senate to secure the adoption of the conference report.
Its adoption was opposed by such Senators as Cameron, Frye, Hawley,
Hoar, Morrill, Sawyer, Sewell, Sherman, and Spooner. The pooling
and long-and-short-haul clauses were the most fought over. Senator
Platt, although a member of the conference, made a very able speech
on the subject of pooling, in which he showed considerable feeling,
and I at one time feared that he would oppose the adoption of the
conference report on that account altogether. He concluded a very
able address during the last days of the consideration of the
report, by saying:
"Nine-tenths of all the interstate commerce business done to-day
is done under these arrangements which are sought to be damned
because of the evil meaning which has been given to the word
'pooling.' Whatever stability has been given to the railroad
business, and through it to other business of the country, has been
secured by these traffic arrangements, and in my judgment a bill
which breaks them all up ruthlessly within sixty days, which invites
the competition which is to demoralize business, will be far-reaching
in its injurious results. For one I prefer to stand by my judgment.
I will try to have the courage of my convictions; I will try to do
what I believe to be right, and I cannot consent to a bill which,
though I accept its other provisions, contains a provision which
I regard as positively vicious and wrong."
I was greatly provoked, almost outraged, at the manner in which
Senators opposed the adoption of the conference report. It became
almost a personal matter with me, and I finally concluded on the
very day the vote was to be taken, whether the adoption of the
report was to be beaten or not, that I would make a speech, and in
that speech I indicated just how I felt. I said in part:
"I have been sitting here to-day listening to the assaults upon
this bill, until I have become almost convinced that I am the most
vicious man toward the railroads of any man I know. I started in
upon the investigation of this subject two or three years ago with
no prejudices, no bias of sentiment or judgment, no disposition
whatever to do anything except that which my deliberate judgment
told me was the best thing to do. I have believed I have occupied
that position ever since, until within the last twenty-four hours,
when the attacks upon this bill have become such that I have become
a little doubtful whether I have not been inspired from the beginning,
so far as my action has been concerned, with a determination to
destroy the railroads of this country. To listen to the Senator
from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] descanting upon the provisions of the
bill, one can scarcely resist the conclusion that it is a bill to
destroy the commerce of the country, and especially to break down
all the railroads.
"So far as I am concerned, I repeat that I have no disposition of
that kind, and I am unaware that either of the Senators on the
conference committee have had any such disposition. We tried to
do the best we could with the bill the Senate passed during the
last session, to keep the bill as near to what the Senate had it
as we could do, and to arrive at an agreement between the House
and Senate conferees.
"I submit that the majority of the assaults have been against
provisions that were in the bill when the Senate voted for it during
the last session of Congress. I am of the opinion that if this
discussion lasted another day Senators would find in every line of
the bill a very serious objection to its adoption. They started
in to object to some provisions of the fourth and fifth sections.
The Senator who has just concluded his remarks got over to the
thirteenth section and I believe went one or two sections beyond
that, and if there are any more speeches to be made against the
bill I suppose the very last section of it will be attacked before
a vote is taken.
"The Senate conferees regarded it as their duty to cling to every
portion of the Senate bill, as it was passed, that they could cling
to and reach an agreement between the conferees of the House and
Senate. Hence it was that all these portions of the Senate bill
not objected to by the House conferees were allowed to remain in
the bill by the Senate conferees, the Senate conferees, as a matter
of course, believing that the Senate of the United States knew what
it was doing when it voted for the bill in the first place, and
thinking that it remained of the same mind still. . . .
"The Senator from Georgia assaults the bill because he says that
under it the provisions are so rigid that the railroads of the
country can do no business at all. The Senator from Oregon assaults
the bill because he says the fourth section amounts to nothing,
and that the words 'under like circumstances and conditions' ought
to be taken out.
"The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] assaults the bill because
he says it is going to interfere with foreign commerce, and that
the fourth section will be construed as not allowing a rebate of
five cents a hundred upon commerce shipped across the country for
exportation. . . .
"So I might go on referring to every Senator who has spoken against
the bill, and nearly every one of them has founded his objections
to the bill upon the use of the language that he had previously
voted for in the Senate of the United States before the bill went
to conference at all."
Men who opposed any legislation at all never supposed that the
conference report would be agreed to, and I so stated in the Senate
of the United States. I pointed out, moreover, that when they were
met by a conference report the railroad men of the Senate rallied
to the support of the transportation companies. I continued:
"Sir, it has just come to the point where you have got to face the
music and vote for an interstate commerce bill, or vote it down.
That is all there is to it. I have nothing more to say. I have
discharged my duty as best I knew how. I reported on the part of
the Senate conferees the bill that is before you. I am not
responsible for what the Senate does with it. I am not going to
find fault with anybody upon the question whether we concur in the
report or reject it, but I warn Senators that the people of the
United States for the last ten years have been struggling to assert
the principle that the Government of the United States has the
power to regulate transportation from one end of the country to
another. I believe that if this report is rejected it is very
doubtful whether we shall get any legislation at all during this
present Congress, so when the Senate acts upon the question my duty
will have been done so far as I am able to see it.
"I have believed from the time I have given any attention to public
affairs that it was necessary to bring into force the provisions
of the Constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce
among the States. The Senator from New York [Mr. Evarts] attacked
the bill and said that it was unconstitutional because, as I
understand it, the Constitution was framed for the purpose of
facilitating commerce, and this was a bill to hinder or to militate
against it.
"I undertake to say that the purpose of the bill, at least, whatever
may be the strained construction which has been placed upon it or
which may be placed upon it by the transportation companies of the
country, has been to facilitate commerce and to protect the individual
rights of the people as against the great railroad corporations.
I have no disposition to interfere with their legitimate business.
I have no disposition, God knows, to interfere with the commerce
of the country, properly conducted, but I do say that it is the
duty of the Congress of the United States to place upon the statute
book some legislation which will look to the regulation of commerce
upon the railroads that they will not treat one man differently
under similar circumstances and conditions. . . .
"The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] says that we had better go
slow and remain quiet under the old regime. Well, Mr. President,
I remember only a few days ago hearing the Senator from Alabama
alleging that the railroads, the common carriers of the country,
were eating up the people, were destroying the interests of the
people. I do not know whether he confined his remark to his own
State or extended it to the country, but I should have inferred
from the language he used against the railroad companies that he
would have been in favor of almost any legislation that would in
any way restrict them in their reckless disregard of the rights of
the people. I can only conclude that the Senator from Alabama
would rather that destructive system should go on, as he charged
it to exist when he made his speech the other day, without control,
than to trust a commission who he says are individually liable to
corrupt influences either at the hands of the President or somebody
else outside.
"Sir, we have got to trust somebody. We must either leave this
matter to the discretion and judgment and sense of honor of the
officers of the railroad companies, or we must trust the commission
and the courts of the country to protect the people against unjust
discrimination and extortion on the part of the common carriers.
Is it the President of the United States as against a corporation?
Is it an honest commission honestly selected by the President of
the United States as against a railroad company? I say that there
are not those inducements to be placed in the hands of a set of
men selected for their integrity, selected for their ability,
selected for their capacity to regulate railroads and enforce the
law, that are left in the hands of the officers of the railroad
companies themselves.
"I take it that there is somebody honest in this country, and that
the President, if this bill becomes a law, will select the broadest
gauge men, the men highest in integrity and intelligence as the
men to enforce this law as against the corporations and as a go-
between, if you please, between the shippers and the railroads of
the country. I am willing to trust them. If they are not honest
the President has the right to remove them; and if the shipper is
unwilling to submit to their judgment, under the bill he has a
right to go directly to the courts. I say that there is not anything
that can be done by these corporations against individuals where
the shipper himself has not a right to get into court in some way
or other, if he is not willing to abide by the decision of the
commissioners appointed by the President."
The conference report was adopted by a vote of thirty-seven yeas
to twelve nays; but it was a rather significant fact that there
were twenty-six absent, including Senators Aldrich, Dawes, Evarts,
Morgan, and some of the most bitter opponents of railroad
regulation.
The provisions of the Act of 1887 are too well known to need any
recital here. In a word, it was partly declaratory of the common
law, its essential features being that railroad charges must be
reasonable; that there must be no discriminations between persons
and no preference between localities; railroads were prohibited
from charging less for a long haul than for a shorter haul, "included
within it under substantially similar circumstances"; pooling was
prohibited; and a commission was established with power to hear
and decide complaints, to make investigations and reports, and
generally to see to the enforcement of the Act.
Considering the abuses that existed, the Act of 1887 was conservative
legislation, but in Congress and among the people generally it was
considered radical, until the courts robbed it by judicial construction
of much of its intended force. During the debates, Senators remarked
that never in the history of governments was a bill under consideration
which would inevitably affect directly or remotely so great financial
and industrial interests. It marked the beginning of a new era in
the management of the railway business of the United States. It
was the beginning of Governmental regulation which has finally
culminated in the legislation of the Sixty-first Congress. And it
is no little satisfaction to me to say that the fundamental principles
of the original Act of 1887 have been retained in all subsequent
acts. No one has seriously advocated that the fundamental principles
of the Act of 1887 be changed, and subsequent legislation has been
built upon it.
After the passage of the original Act of 1887, a permanent Interstate
Committee of the Senate, of which I had the honor to be chairman,
and in which position I remained for many years, was created. It
was a very active committee at first. Necessarily, amendments were
made to the law, and the railroads generally observed the law in
good faith. Even the long-and-short-haul clause was observed, as
it was intended by Congress that it should be. That is, the
railroads did not set up at first that competition would create a
dissimilarity of conditions and circumstances so as to justify them
in charging more for the short haul than for the long haul. But
it was not many years before the railroads attacked first one and
then another provision of the law, and they generally secured
favorable decisions from the courts. I do not intend to go into
the details of these decisions, the last one being the decision in
the case which held that the Commission had no power to fix a future
rate, because the act did not give it that express power. My own
judgment is, and was at the time, that the original act by implication
did give to the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to say
after complaint and hearing, and after a given rate had been declared
to be unreasonable, what in that case would be a reasonable rate;
but the courts decided otherwise. Immediately, I drew up and
introduced a bill, number 1439, of the Fifty-sixth Congress, and
had it referred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce. This bill
contained provisions substantially the same as were contained in
the Hepburn Bill which passed the Senate in 1906. And in addition
it was designed to give effect to the provisions of the original
act which had been nullified by judicial construction. I worked
my hardest to secure a favorable report of this bill. We had many
hearings; but the Committee on Interstate Commerce, far from being
in favor of favorably reporting the bill, were inclined to decline
to allow me to report it to the Senate at all. I insisted that I
would report it even though adversely, which I was finally permitted
to do. But when reported to the Senate I stated that I reported
it adversely because a majority of the committee were against it,
but that I favored the bill personally, and would do what I could
to secure its passage. This was in the year 1899.
It was not until seven years later that public sentiment was aroused
to such an extent that it was possible to secure the amendments to
the Act of 1887 which were embodied in Senate bill 1439.
I think it is only justice to myself to say--and I say it with much
regret--that there were two reasons why it was impossible to secure
at that time the report and passage of Senate bill 1439. First of
all, the Executive did not manifest any special interest in securing
additional railroad regulation. Secondly, the railroads themselves
had been very active in securing a change of the personnel of the
Committee on Interstate Commerce, and men had been elected to the
Senate and placed on that committee whose sympathies were in favor
of very conservative regulation, if any regulation at all. The
railroads had firmly determined to stop any further railroad
regulation. And finally, in the make-up of the Committee, a majority
of the Senators placed on the Committee on Interstate Commerce were
men whose sympathies were with the railroads.
But even with the personnel of the committee made up against me,
I have thought that had the late President McKinley given me the
active support which he could have given, I could have secured, in
1899, practically all the legislation that was secured six years
later. It is only justice to ex-President Roosevelt to say that
had it not been for his earnest advocacy of railroad rate regulation
the Hepburn Bill would never have been passed. With a chairman of
the Committee on Interstate Commerce well known for his conservatism
on the subject, with a majority of Republicans on the committee in
sympathy with him, without the arousing of public sentiment by
President Roosevelt, nothing would have been done.
I continued to take an exceptionally active part in railroad
regulation until I was placed at the head of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Senate, and even afterwards I remained as the
ranking member, next to the Chairman, of the Committee on Interstate
Commerce, where I was glad to further as best I could such measures
as came before the Committee in the way of strengthening and giving
force to the original act.
I consented very reluctantly to leave the chairmanship of the
Committee on Interstate Commerce, where I had served during all my
term in the Senate, and I do not believe I would have done so had
it not been for the manner in which the committee was packed against
me in the interest of non-action. At the last it became so that
even the simplest measures which affected the railroads in the
slightest degree would receive adverse action or none at all. I
was utterly disgusted, and on several occasions told prominent
railroad men that if they continued such methods the time would
surely come when the people would become so aroused that they would
see enacted the most drastic of railroad rate laws.
I had much to do with the passage of the Hepburn Act of 1906.
After President Roosevelt had repeatedly urged it in his messages
to Congress, and privately brought influence to bear on Senators,
it seemed pretty certain that public sentiment demanded that
practically the amendments to the original act embodied in Senate
bill 1439, to which I have already referred, would sooner or later
have to be enacted into law. As usual, those opposed to such
legislation demanded that hearings be held, and the Committee on
Interstate Commerce was authorized to sit during the recess of
Congress and to hold hearings. Many weeks were consumed in these
hearings, and many volumes of testimony were taken. I do not
believe that I missed a session of the committee, and I tried as
best I could to bring forth from the numerous witnesses summoned
before the committee evidence to assist in securing the passage of
the amendments to the original act, which I then thought necessary
to perfect it.
I had expected to render what assistance I could during the next
session, which convened in December, in framing the bill in committee
and to assist in its passage in the Senate. But very unfortunately,
just at the beginning of the next session of Congress, when the
hearings were all concluded and the committee was prepared to go
into executive session to consider the bill itself, I was taken
ill and compelled to spend a couple of months in Florida to recover
my health. It may seem strange, but the fact is, that my absence
expedited the consideration of the bill by the committee and its
report to the Senate. I had telegraphed and written my late
colleague, Senator Dolliver, to record me as voting for the favorable
report of the bill from the committee to the Senate. It was expected
that the committee would have to hold many sessions to consider the
numerous amendments that had been offered. Senator Dolliver, at
one of the first meetings of the committee called to consider the
bill, read my telegram and letter asking to be voted in favor of
reporting the bill. Objection was made to recording me, and one
distinguished Senator raised the point respecting how I was to be
recorded on the question of amendments. Considerable controversy,
I understand, took place, and Senator Dolliver then moved to report
the bill to the Senate with the amendments already adopted in
committee. This closed the discussion in the committee; the vote
was taken, and the bill was ordered reported to the Senate, my vote
being recorded in the affirmative; after which Senator Aldrich, in
order to make it appear all the more ridiculous, moved that Senator
Tillman, a minority member of the committee, be authorized to report
the bill. This motion prevailed; Senator Tillman did report it,
and he had charge of its passage in the Senate. So, as I have
stated, my absence, through the controversy over counting my vote,
really expedited the bill through the committee.
I returned to my seat in the Senate in February, while the bill
was being considered, and assisted as best I could through conferences
with President Roosevelt and members of the Senate in agreeing on
sections of the bill which were in controversy, particularly the
court review section. I was also one of the conferees on the part
of the Senate that finally settled the differences between the two
Houses.
It was a very satisfactory bill, in the form in which it finally
became a law.