Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

PREFACE.

The object in preparing this volume was to collect and present in a form convenient for reference and preservation, information calculated to throw light on the intent and meaning of the "Act to Regulate Commerce," otherwise known as the Inter-state Commerce law, which went into effect April 5, 1887. No congressional enactment, probably, has ever called out such widely differing interpretations, while none has ever before undertaken so directly to regulate and govern business and financial interests of such vast magnitude. The importance, therefore, of a clear understanding as to what the framers of this law actually intended is exceedingly great.

The subject of national regulation of common carriers, which had been under active discussion at frequent intervals in Congress, as well as in the State legislatures and through the public press for years, took definite form during 1886 in the passage by the Senate of what is known as the Cullom bill, May 12. The House refused to concur in this bill, but on July 30, 1886, passed what is known as the Reagan bill. The Senate failing to concur, a conference committee was appointed by each body, and the result of their deliberations was the "Act to Regulate Commerce,” which was finally passed by the Senate January 14, 1887, and by the House January 21, was approved by the President February 4, and went into effect April 5, 1887. The three bills referred to are reproduced in this volume, and from the mass of material contained in the extended debates in both houses of Congress previous to the passage of the existing law there have been selected the following: The remarks of Senator Cullom, December 15, 1886, and January 10 and 14, 1887, explanatory of the various provisions of the act; the remarks of Senator Wilson, as representing the western and so called " granger" feeling in favor of stringent railway legislation; the remarks of Senator Platt, of Connecticut, favoring the proposed bill with the exception of the clause prohibiting pooling, and in this speech giving an elaborate argument, strongly fortified by citations from other authorities, in defense of the pooling system; the remarks of Senator Stanford, of California, opposing entirely the principle and form of the proposed legislation, and the remarks of Mr. Crisp, of Georgia, in the House, as representing the views of Mr. Reagan and other extreme advocates of national control of the railways. Mr. Crisp's speech embodies the statement of the con

ferees on the part of the house, Messrs. Reagan, Crisp and Weaver, and is a strong statement of the arguments in opposition to pooling and in defense of the long and short haul clause and other provisions of the law as it now stands. As presenting some of the objections of business interests to the proposed bill, there is given the protest of the Minneapolis Board of Trade, presented to Congress just before the passage of the law.

As soon as the law was put in force, the uncertainty and confusion in the public mind in regard to the actual intent and meaning of its provisions continued to find expression, and the views of railway officials and associations were anxiously sought for. As an example of the interpretations rendered, there are given in this work papers by Mr. Albert Fink, Commissioner of the Trunk Lines; by Mr. George R. Blanchard, Commissioner of the Central Traffic Association, and by President Alexander, of the Georgia Central Railroad Company; followed by official interpretations of the law, as its meaning was understood, by the joint committee of general passenger agents of the Trunk Lines and their immediate connections; by the Western Passenger Association; by the Southern Passenger Association, and by the managers of New England railroads in convention.

As soon as the Inter-state Commerce commission was appointed and commenced work, it was confronted with numerous petitions from railway companies and individuals for a suspension of the provisions of the fourth section of the act, concerning the charges for long and short hauls. The difficulties in the way of the enforcement of this section are set forth very clearly in the argument made before the commission by Mr. Milton H. Smith, on behalf of the Southern Railway & Steamship Association. This is followed by the first official order of the Inter-state Commerce commission, suspending the provisions of section 4 for the railways in that association in accordance with the petition. There is also given a record of subsequent action by the commission in declining certain other petitions and accompanying its action with a severe admonition to the railways; and its ruling on April 23, suspending the enforcement of the fourth section in the case of the transcontinental railways.

From a study of this mass of varied information, those interested in an understanding of the Inter-state Commerce law will obtain some help, while waiting for that full light in regard to the merits and defects of the law which can only be obtained from experience of its practical working. THE EDITORS.

Office of THE RAILWAY AGE,

CHICAGO, May 1, 1887.

ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERSTATE COM

MERCE COMMISSION.

On March 22, 1887, President Cleveland announced the appointment of the members of the interstate commerce commission, as follows: THOMAS M. COOLEY, of Michigan, for the term of six years. WILLIAM R. MORRISON, of Illinois, for the term of five years. AUGUSTUS SCHOONMAKER, of New York, for the term of four years. ALDACE F. WALKER, of Vermont, for the term of three years. WALTER L. BRAGG, of Alabama, for the term of two years. The commission held its first session at Washington, D. C., April 1, 1887, and organized by electing Judge Cooley as chairman.

MR. EDGAR A. MOSELY, of Newburyport, Mass., was subsequently elected secretary.

SKETCH OF THE LIVES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

JUDGE THOMAS M. COOLEY was born in Attica, N. Y., January 6, 1824. He removed to Michigan in 1843, and was admitted to the bar at Adrian in 1846, where he settled permanently in 1848. In 1857 he was appointed to compile the statutes of Michigan, which were published in two volumes. He was reporter of the Michigan Supreme Court 1858 to 1864, and published eight volumes of reports. In 1850 he became Jay Professor of Law in the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and held the position for many years. In 1864 he was elected a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, continuing on the bench 20 years, but was defeated for re-election in 1885. He has published a "Digest of Michigan Reports" (1866) and a "Treatise on Constitutional Limitations of the Legislative Power of the States (1868), on which latter work largely rests his fame as a jurist. Several years ago he served with E. B. Washburne and Allen G. Thurman as an Advisory Commission to settle trunk-line disputes, becoming sole arbitrator on the withdrawal of his fellow-commissioners. He was appointed receiver of the Wabash railway lines, east of the Mississippi river, in December, 1886, resigning to accept the position which he now holds.

WILLIAM R. MORRISON, of Waterloo, Ill., was born in Monroe County, that State, September 24, 1825. He was reared on a farm, and after receiving a common-school education was for some time a student at McKendree College. He served in the Mexican war as a private. From 1852 to 1854 he was clerk of the Circuit Court of Monroe County. In 1855 he was admitted to the bar, and began practice at

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »