railroads there has not been exercised a proper regard for the rights of the people. The new law is confessedly an experiment as to some of its provisions. Those who are responsible for its terms have never been disposed to claim that it was perfect, but it represented their best judgment after careful investigation. "To put it in a little different way, it was the best bill to which the two Houses of Congress could agree. It could not reasonably be expected that the intricacies and complications of the railroad problem, which have puzzled the wisest minds of this and other countries for years, could be solved at the first attempt; but a long stride in advance has been taken, and if we hold fast the great advantages already gained, time and experience will render further progress safe and certain. "The act will not be repealed, and if any persons or corporations imagine it will, they may as well dismiss that expectation. Its substantial provisions have come to stay, because the people will find out, if they have not already, that they are in the interest of the general welfare. "The new law is often represented by those with whose accustomed privileges it has interfered, to be a vague, ambiguous, bungled affair, which its promoters do not understand and could not explain. This was the fashionable mode of attack upon the measure while it was pending in Congress, but that mode of attack has become less popular since the law went into effect, and those interests have been obliged to study its provisions. As a prominent railroad man said to me some time ago, referring to such statements: "We quit saying that some time ago-we know too well what it means." So far as my observation goes. those who are attacking the law and seeking to overthrow it, are the persons who profess to find difficulties in understanding its meaning. It is in their way. They want to get rid of it. The true ground of objection on the part of such critics is to be found in the purposes and not in the alleged ambiguity of the law. The fact is, that there is nothing particularly new or startling in its provisions; similar provisions are found in the constitutions and statutes of many of the States and in the laws of other countries. Much of the language used in the most important sections has a settled meaning, having been judicially construed either in this country or in England, and this is especially true of some of the phases which have been most generally attacked as meaningless and ambiguous. Briefly stated, the great purpose of the law is to prevent unjust discrimination. About all the wrong-doing by common carriers in dealing with the people, is the result of unjust discrimination in one form or another. The law requires that all charges shall be reasonable and just—it prohibits all kinds of unjust discriminations between individuals; it prohibits undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages in favor of persons or places, or any particular description of traffic. "It requires reasonable and equal facilities to be extended to others for the interchange of traffic, and it prohibits pooling. Surely, there is nothing unreasonable or outrageous in these requirements. They simply apply the cardinal principles of the Declaration of Independence to the management of railroads by declaring that all men shall be equal in the eye of the railroad manager, and that all who are situated alike shall be treated alike without fear or favor, and that whatever their situation may be, all must be treated fairly. "The need of such a declaration has been shown more plainly than ever, by the nature and character of the complaints made against the enforcement of the law. The entire system of railroad management has been honeycombed with discriminations, some justifiable, but more wholly without excuse. The new law, to a large degree, revolutionized the methods of railway ratemaking that previously prevailed, and it was to be expected that when it went into operation it would seriously disturb the existing conditions of business. The object of the law is to secure the greatest good to the greatest number, and this could not be accomplished without interfering with the arrangements of those who were recipients of undue or unreasonable advantages. It was necessary that those who had previously been especially favored should be denied these privileges for the common good, and the readjustment of business to the changed condition of affairs brought about when the law took effect has taken place with very much less friction or commercial disturbance than I had anticipated. "The prohibition of a greater charge for a shorter than for a longer haul is objected to on the ground that it is an interference with the natural laws of trade and with natural trade centres. My answer to this is, that for many years past the railroads of the country have so absolutely controlled our interstate commerce that we have no means of knowing what are the natural channels of traffic or what would be the effect of the natural laws of trade upon many at least of the present commercial centres. What the critics of the law call natural centres of trade are centres created by railway favoritism, which has diverted trade from its natural channels into artificial ones at the expense of less favored localities. So far the chief opposition to the law by the railroads has been directed against the fourth section, which provides against charging more for the short than for the longer distance on the same line and in the same direction, etc. That section was attacked with such earnestness by so many railroads and combinations of roads after the law took effect and the Commission was appointed, that the Commission was induced to make orders in several cases suspending the operation of that section as to certain roads, and to relieve other roads from the operation of the section in the transaction of certain portions of their business. The Commission has been somewhat severely criticised in certain quarters for so doing. It has recently given notice that the relief will not be continued after the specified time expires. I thought the Commission was straining the authority granted to them in their action in granting relief, and if they had the power it was perhaps a mistake to exercise it to the extent they did. They had just come into office, however, but a few days before the law went into force. There had been a constant expression of fear on the part of some and a declaration of many men operating long lines of road that a compliance with the section would ruin them and the business of the country, and under all the circumstances I was not surprised at the action of the board. They now have their grip, and feel that they comprehend the situation; and their opinion on petitions for relief under section four of the act indicates that they intend to allow that section of the act to have as much force and effect as other provisions of the statute, except in such special cases as clearly call for relief, and I trust that relief will hereafter be granted only after careful investigation. "It is easy to abouse a public officer, and the most ignorant can do it, and frequently do with more freedom than do the wise: and I feel like saying, I take pleasure in saying, that while the commission may have made a mistake in giving relief from the short-haul clause to the extent they did in the outset, yet I have no question but that they believed the course they pursued was the wise one, and I am not prepared to say with confidence that it was not. I believe they are doing the best they can. I do not believe that the law would result in any substantial good to the people without such a special tribunal for its enforcement. No law would be of any account to the country without a wise and prudent commission to enforce it. It is fashionable to attack commissioners charged with a special duty, but I trust that the commission charged with the great work of protecting the people in their dealings with the railroads engaged in interstate commerce under this new law will be upheld and strengthened in the performance of their duty. It is their duty to enforce the law, and I hope now that they have made known to the railroads their general views on the question of the construction of the statute as it applies to the operation of railroads, and as it affects their own action, that they will give more definite and specific attention to the question whether the schedules of rates of freight filed in their office are made out according to law without unjust discrimination or extortion against any persons or localities, and also the question whether the roads are actually complying with their schedules and the law. "The danger in my judgment is that, even with the Commission, after a little time the railroads will drop back into their old habits of unjust discrimination, of paying rebates and practicing favoritism, etc. It will require the vigilance of the Commission It is It is as well as of the people to bring our common carriers into the way of doing business as the law and justice to all require. charged that they are not yet doing business in that way. charged that they are trying to so operate by appearing to comply with the statute as to make the law offensive to the people, and thereby secure its repeal. I make no such charges, because I do not know what the facts are; but railroad companies and their managers need not attempt to deceive the people, and I trust they will not, for any such attempt will fail and will only prolong the struggle. There should be no antagonism between the shipper and the common carrier; the one is a necessity to the other. You gentlemen engaged in the grain trade cannot get along without the railroads, and I am sure so many railroads cannot be supported without your patronage; so the relation between the railroads and the people should be thoroughly friendly, their prosperity being dependent on each other. The great purpose of the law, as I said, is to prevent unjust discrimination, to bring the common carriers down to legitimate, fair, straightforward dealings. The railroads are common carriers; they are, in a sense, agents of the people; they occupy a different relation to the public from the merchant or the farmer. They are from the very nature of things monopolies, and are performing a public trust, and it is the duty of the State and nation to see that as monopolies they do not abuse the privileges granted to them. "But gentlemen, I promised you that I would be brief. This subject is too great to discuss satisfactorily in a few moments' time. If the law in its general scope and purpose is right, stand by it; if it is imperfect and needs modifying, strengthening or amending, let the Commission and Congress know wherein; and I trust that it will not be long before we shall have a perfect statute that will secure justice to the people and the railroads alike, and that increased prosperity may result to all." The minor points of this argument would seem to yield to a very rapid treatment. Some of its readers, indeed, might object to such a division of the inhabitants of the United States into "men engaged in the conduct of railroads " and "the people," as |