PASSES AND POLITICS.
One of the most important forms of discrimination is the railroad pass.
Many persons of wealth or influence, legislators, judges, sheriffs,
assessors, representatives of the press, big shippers, and agents of
large concerns, get free transportation, while those less favored must
pay not only for their own transportation, but for that of the railway
favorites also.
A farmer and a lawyer occupied the same seat in a railroad car. When the
conductor came the farmer presented his ticket, and the lawyer a pass.
The farmer did not conceal his disgust when he discovered that his
seat-mate was a deadhead. The lawyer, trying to assuage the indignation
of the farmer, said to him: “My friend, you travel very cheaply on this
road.” “I think so myself,” replied the farmer, “considering the fact
that I have to pay fare for both of us.”
The free-pass system is specially vicious because of its relation to
government. Passes are constantly given to public officials in spite of
the law, and constitute one of the most insidious forms of bribery and
corruption yet invented. I have in my possession some photographs of
annual passes given by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1903, 1904, and 1905
to members of the State Legislature, and the Common Council of
Philadelphia.
The Constitution of Pennsylvania, Section 8 of Article 8, says: “No
railroad, railway, or other transportation company, shall grant free
passes, or passes at a discount, to any persons except officers or
employees of the company.”
The question is whether the members of the Legislature are employees of
the Pennsylvania Railroad.
Recently the Pennsylvania Railroad gave notice that after January 1,
1906, no free passes would be issued except to employees. As we have
seen reason to believe, this may still include members of the
Legislature, and even if the order should happen to be enforced
according to the common acceptation of the word “employees,” there are
plenty of ways in which free transportation can be given to men the
railroad management deems it desirable to favor. Railroads have made
such orders before, and in every case the fact has proved to be that the
order simply constituted an easy method of lopping off the overgrown
demand for passes, a ready excuse for denying requests the railroad does
not wish to honor, without in the least interfering with its power of
favoring those it really wishes to favor. In cutting off passes under
said order to multitudes of city officials in Pittsburg lately the
Pennsylvania railroad officers stated that the demand had become so
great that those having free rides were actually crowding the paying
passengers on many of the trains. The _Philadelphia North American_
declared that in that city every big and little politician expected free
passage when he requested it, and that there was no ward heeler so
humble that he might not demand transportation for himself and friends
to Atlantic City, Harrisburg, or any other point on the Pennsylvania
line. The _Springfield Republican_ said: “It does not appear to be
recognized, in the praise given to the present action of the railroad
company, how great an impeachment of its management the old order
constituted. We are told that passes were issued literally in bundles
for the use of political workers, big and little.”
We watched with much interest to see what the railroad would really do
when the time for full enforcement of the order came. In Pennsylvania,
as was anticipated, the order has been used as a basis for refusing
passes to the overgrown horde of grafters who have feasted so long at
the Pennsylvania’s tables. The railway does not want anything this year
in Pennsylvania that the grafters can give it, and it is an excellent
opportunity to punish the Pittsburg politicians for allowing the Gould
lines to enter the city. But in Ohio the situation is different, and, in
spite of the recent order, the time-honored free passes have been sent
to every member of the Ohio Legislature. A press despatch from Columbus,
January 1, says: “One of the notable events that marked the opening of
the general assembly to-day was the unexpected arrival of railroad
passes for every member. The Pennsylvania, first to announce that the
time-honored graft would be cut off, was the first to send the little
tickets, and the other lines followed suit.”
The Pennsylvania is not alone in its delicate generosity to legislators
and other persons of influence. The _practice_ is _practically_
universal.[3] From Maine to California there is not a State in which the
railroads refrain from giving passes to legislators, judges, mayors,
assessors, etc. And the roads expect full value for their favors. Some
time ago a member of the Illinois Legislature applied to the president
of a leading railroad for a pass. In reply he received the following:
“Your letter of the 22nd to President ——, requesting an annual over the
railroad of this company, has been referred to me. A couple of years
ago, after you had been furnished with an annual over this line, you
voted against a bill which you knew this company was directly interested
in. Do you know of any particular reason, therefore, why we should favor
you with an annual this year?”
The railroads give passes to legislators and public officials not, as a
rule, in any spirit of philanthropy or respect for public office, but as
a matter of business; and if a legislator does not recognize the
obligation that adheres to the pass, the pass is not likely to adhere to
him in subsequent years.
In many cases the pass is the first step on the road to railroad
servitude. Governor Folk said to me: “The railroads debauch legislators
at the start by the free pass. It is a misdemeanor by the law of this
State to take such a favor.[4] But it seems so ordinary a thing that the
legislator takes it. He may start out with good intentions, but he takes
a pass and then the railroad people have him in their power. He has
broken the law, and if he does not do as they wish they threaten to
publish the number of his pass. He generally ends by taking bribe money.
He’s in the railroad power anyway to a certain extent, and thinks he
might as well make something out of it. In investigating cases of
corruption I have found that in almost every instance the first step of
the legislator toward bribery was the acceptance of a railroad pass.”
At the annual dinner of the Boston Merchants’ Association, January,
1906, Governor Folk said: “One of our greatest evils is the domination
of public affairs by our great corporations, and we will never get rid
of corporation dominance till we get rid of the free pass. That is the
insidious bribe that carries our legislators over the line of probity.
First seduced by the free pass, destruction is easy. No legislator has a
right to accept a free pass; no more right than to accept its equivalent
in money.” Even the laws against the free pass, Governor Folk says,
often play into the hands of the railways and emphasize and fasten
corruption upon the State by putting legislators and officials at the
mercy of the railroads in consequence of the fact that the taking of a
pass is a violation of law, so that the railway has a special hold upon
the donee as soon as the favor is accepted. This is likely to be the
effect unless the law is so thoroughly enforced as to prevent the taking
of passes, which is very difficult and very seldom achieved.
Governor Folk is doing his best to abolish the pass evil. It used to be
a common thing for officials of all grades to ride on passes. And any
influential person in Jefferson City could get a pass by seeing a member
of the House or Senate, who would send a note to Colonel Phelps and a
pass would be forthcoming. Now the legislators decline to accommodate
their friends by making these little requests, for the matter might come
to the ear of Governor Folk. Moreover the government employees in
Missouri have been cut off from these railroad “courtesies.” The statute
does not apply to appointive officers, but the Governor does not intend
that his department shall be honeycombed with railroad influence if he
can help it. One of the officers of a subordinate branch of the
government went to him and asked him about the matter. “I do not want a
pass for myself,” said the interrogator, “but Mr. W. told me that he
would like for me to see you before he accepted a pass and see if you
had any objections. And I want to add, Governor, that it has always been
the custom for the employees in this department to use free passes.”
Governor Folk’s countenance lost its smile for the moment, as he said
very slowly and sternly: “Tell the employees of your department that if
any of my appointees ride upon railway passes they will be instantly
discharged.”
These insidious bribes in the guise of courtesy and honor for
position—these free passes which Governor Folk denounces as the first
steps to corruption—are prevalent in all our States. Even in honest old
Maine, the frosty forest State, I found the railroad pass in full bloom.
Speaking to a joint committee of the House and Senate at Augusta a few
months ago, I exhibited a number of photographs of passes given to
legislators and councilmen by one of our big railroads. The members
examined these photos with much interest and some facetious remarks. On
the way into town a famous lobbyist who has long and close acquaintance
with the legislature of Maine laughed till the tears ran down his cheeks
over the memory of the scene, puffing out between his explosions the
explanation of his merriment: “Every one of those fellows has a railroad
pass in his own pocket.” Inquiry in other directions tends to confirm
his statement.
It is hardly possible to imagine that the ordinary legislator or judge
can be entirely impartial in reference to a railroad bill or suit when
he is under obligation to the railroads for past favors and hopes for
similar courtesies in the future.
When a judge finds that jurors in a railroad case have accepted passes
from the railroad he discharges the jurors as unfit for impartial
service,[5] yet that same judge may have in his pocket an annual pass
over all the lines of the road that is plaintiff or defendant in the
case.
Some railroad presidents and managers have told me that passes are given
as mere courtesies and are not intended to influence the conduct of
officials. This may be true in some cases, but as a rule the railroads
do not give charity; but expect favor for favor, and value for value, or
multiplied value for value. Railroad men have sometimes admitted to me
that the psychology of the pass is closely related to that of the bribe,
and that they sought and obtained political results from the
distribution of transportation favors. And aside from such admissions
the evidence on the facts is overwhelming.
A prominent judge who had been on the bench for years in one of our best
States and had always received passes from various railroad companies,
found at the beginning of a new year that one of the principal railroads
had failed to send him the customary pass. Thinking it an oversight he
called the attention of the railroad’s chief attorney to the fact.
“Judge,” said the lawyer, “did you not recently decide an important case
against our company?” “And was not my decision in accordance with law
and justice?” said the judge. The attorney did not reply to this, but a
few days later the judge got his pass. After some months it again became
the duty of the judge to render a decision against the company. This
second act of judicial independence was not forgiven. The next time he
presented his pass the conductor confiscated it in the presence of many
passengers and required the judge to pay his fare.
The railroad commission in one of our giant States says the fact “that
for the most part passes are given to official persons for the purpose
of influencing official conduct, is made manifest by the fact that they
are not given to such persons except while they hold official
positions.”[6]
The president of an important railroad is stated to have said that he
“saved his company thousands of dollars a year by giving annual passes
to county auditors.” And a man who had been auditor for many years said
that the taxes of the —— railroad company were increased about $20,000 a
year because it was so stingy with its passes.[7]
Members of legislatures and of Congress have told me that after voting
against railroad measures the usual passes were not forthcoming.
A little while before the introduction of the rate legislation now
pending, in pursuance of President Roosevelt’s regulative policy, a
congressman from the Far West was visiting with us. He had free
transportation for himself and family anywhere in the United States any
time he wanted it. A lady in the family asked him if it was the same way
with the rest of the congressmen, and he said “Yes.” I have in my notes
conversations with senators and representatives from eighteen States,
and all of them stated, in reply to my questions, that passes were an
established and regular part of the perquisites of a member of Congress.
But since the Esch-Townsend bill for the fixing of rates by a government
commission came on deck, I understand that the congressmen who supported
it are learning the lesson conveyed in the pass-denying letter above
quoted, as some of the railroads are refusing all the requests of such
congressmen for free transportation. The president of one of these
railroads is reported to have said: “I never was in favor of granting
political transportation, and now I have a good opportunity to cut off
some of these deadheads. Transportation has been given them in the past
on the theory that they were friends, but when we needed friends they
were not there.”
This, however, is only a passing phase—an emergency measure to punish a
few congressmen who have shown so little appreciation of the right of
the railroads to make the laws affecting transportation, that they
actually voted for what they deemed right or for what the people
desired, rather than for what the railroads wanted.
Aside from such little eddies, the great stream of dead-headism flows on
as smooth and deep as ever. The people take the thing so much as a
matter of course that it has been a constant cause of surprise to
passengers on the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad to see
Governor Douglas pay his fare day by day as he travelled to and fro on
an ordinary commutation ticket.
A prominent judge of Chicago tells me that for years the leading
railroads entering that city have sent him annual passes without
request. I found the same thing in Denver, San Francisco, New York,
Boston, and nearly everywhere else I have been in this country. The
mayor of one of our giant cities told me this very morning that the
principal railroads sent him annuals but he returned them. It would be
better if he would turn the next lot over to a publicity league or put
them in a museum.
In many cases the railroads are practically forced to give passes. A. B.
Stickney, President of the Chicago and Great Western Railroad was asked
by the Industrial Commission[8] about the giving of passes to members of
the judiciary of Minnesota and Illinois. President Stickney said, “If
any of them ask for transportation, they get it; we don’t hesitate to
give to men of that class if they ask for passes; we never feel at
liberty to refuse.”
“Is there any good reason why a judge who gets a good salary should have
a pass—any greater reason than why John Smith should have a pass?”
“That depends,” said President Stickney, “on what you call a good
reason.... Twenty-five years ago I had charge of a little bit of a road
that was a sort of subordinate of a larger road.
“I had occasion to visit the president of the superior road about
something, and he said: ‘Mr. Stickney, I see that the sheriff of this
county has a pass over your road. I should like to know on what
principle you gave that sheriff a pass.’
“‘I did it on the principle that he was a power, and I was afraid to
refuse him,’ I said.
“‘Well,’ said he, ‘I refused him.’
“‘You will wish you hadn’t before the year is over,’ I replied.
“Sometime afterwards, and during the year, I went into the office to see
the superintendent, but he was not in; I went into the general freight
agent’s office, and he was not in; I went into the general manager’s
office, and he was not in. So I then went into the office of the
president and said, ‘What kind of a road have you got? Your
superintendent is not here, your general freight agent is not here, and
your general manager is not here.’
“He hung his head down and said: ‘Do you remember that conversation we
had about that sheriff’s pass? He’s got all those men on the jury and
has got them stuck for about two weeks.’”
Q. “That answer seems to indicate that railroads would be afraid to
refuse for fear of the penalties?”
A. “I think the railroads find there is a class of men that it is to
their interest not to refuse if they ask for passes.”
Van Oss says that at one time in this country half the passengers rode
on passes.[9] That seems incredible. There is no doubt, however, that
the pass evil was enormous before it was checked by State and Federal
legislation, and still prevails to an astonishing extent. Six years
after the Interstate Act prohibited all preferences, and twenty years
after the State crusade against passes and other discriminations began,
C. Wood Davis, a railway auditor of large experience, and an executive
officer having authority to issue passes, stated that “ten percent of
the railway travel of this country is free, the result being that the
great mass of railway users are yearly mulcted some $33,000,000 for the
benefit of the favored few. No account of these passes is rendered to
State, nation, or the confiding stockholders.”[10] If ten percent still
ride deadhead, as is quite probable, the resulting tax upon paying
railway users is now over $50,000,000 a year. The effect of legislation
has been to give the railways an excuse for shutting off the less
influential of the former deadheads, while the big people ride free in
spite of the law.[11]
The Hon. Martin A. Knapp, Chairman of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, says: “A gentleman told me that on one occasion he came from
Chicago to Washington along in the latter days of November, and every
passenger in the Pullman car, besides himself, was a member of Congress
or other Government official, with their families, and that he was the
only passenger who paid a cent for transportation from Chicago to
Washington, either for his passage or for his Pullman car.”[12]
Paul Morton says: “Passes are given for many reasons, almost all of
which are bad.... Passes are given for personal, political, and
commercial reasons.”[13]
Big shippers and their agents get them as a premium on or inducement to
shipments over the donating railroad. When we went to the St. Louis
Exposition we had to pay our fare, but the shipping manager of a large
firm I have in mind was given free transportation for himself and
family, though he was abundantly able to pay. In fact, those best able
to pay ride free, while the poor have to pay for the rich as well as for
themselves.
One way in which the railway managers evade the Interstate Commerce Law,
in giving passes to large shippers and others, is to designate the
recipients as employees of their own or other companies.[14]
President Stickney, of the Chicago and Great Western Railroad, said in a
recent address before the Washington Economic Society:
“The law which makes it a misdemeanor for any individual not an officer
of a railway company to use a pass was enacted by Congress and approved
by the President 18 years ago, and as an individual rule of action it
was ignored by the congressmen who passed it and by the President who
approved it; and subsequent congressmen and presidents, with rare
exceptions, have ignored its provisions. Travelling, they present the
evidence of their misdemeanor before the eyes of the public in a way
which indicates no regard for the law. The governors of the States, many
of the judges,—in short, all officialdom from the highest to the
lowest,—the higher clergy, college professors, editors, merchants,
bankers, lawyers, present the evidence of their misdemeanor in the same
manner.”
As we shall see presently, there are other forms of passenger
discrimination, such as the free private car, the rate war, etc.
But neither of these nor the selling of tickets below the normal rates
through scalpers, constitutes so inequitable or dangerous a form of
discrimination as the pass system. As Hadley says: “The really serious
form of passenger discrimination is the free-pass system. It is a
serious thing, not so much on account of the money involved, as on
account of the state of the public morals which it indicates (and
develops). When passes are given as a matter of mere favoritism, it is
bad enough. When they are given as a means of influencing legislation,
it is far worse. Yet this last form of corruption has become so
universal that people cease to regard it as corrupt. Public officials
and other men of influence are ready to expect and claim free
transportation as a right. To all intents and purposes they use their
position to levy blackmail against the railroad companies.”[15]
Other leading countries are not afflicted with this pass disease to any
such extent as we are; some of them do not have the malady at all. In
France and Italy I was offered passes, but the government roads of
Austria, Germany, and Belgium not only did not offer passes, but refused
to grant them even when considerable pressure was brought to bear.[16]
The Minister of Railways in Austria informed me that he had no pass
himself, but paid his fare like any ordinary traveller. No amount of
personal or official pull could secure free transportation. The same
thing I found was true in Germany. Only railway employees whose duty
calls them over the road have passes. The Minister pays when he travels
on his own account. And the Emperor also pays for his railway travel. It
is the settled policy of government roads in all enlightened countries
to treat all customers alike so far as possible, concessions being made,
if at all, to those who cannot afford to pay or who have some claim on
the ground of public policy: as in South Africa where children are
carried free to school; in New Zealand, where men out of work are taken
to places where they may find employment, on credit or contingent
payment; and in Germany and other countries, where tickets are sold at
half price for the working-people’s trains in and out of the cities
morning and night.
Even in England, though the roads are private like ours, the
working-people have cheap trains, and public officials pay full fare.
The King of England pays his fare when travelling, and if he has a
special train he pays regular rates for that too. Members of Parliament
also and minor public officers pay for transportation. Passes are not
given for political reasons. The law against this class of
discriminations is thoroughly enforced. But in this country not only
members of Congress and other public officials, but some of our
presidents even have subjected themselves to severe criticism by
accepting free transportation in disregard of Federal law.