University of California Berkeley RAILROAD BILL-ITS MANY MERITORIOUS PROVISIONS-FUTURE STIFLING OF WATER COMPETITION BY RAILROADS PREVENTED SPEECH OF u/y^ HON. JOSEPH R. KNOWLAND OIF 1 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1910 1910 SPEECH OF HON. JOSEPH E. KNOWLAND. The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 17536) to create an interstate-commerce court, and to amend the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, as heretofore amended, and for other purposes Mr. KNOWLAND said : Mr. CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce which reported the pending bill consists of 18 mem- bers, and of that number all but two are lawyers. I am one of the two not of the legal profession, but after attending the exhaustive hearings upon the measure now under discussion, which began on the 18th day of January and continued until the 1st day of March, when the committee in executive session took up the consideration of the bill section by section and line by line, I consider myself almost qualified to apply for admis- sion to the bar. Without betraying any confidences or divulging committee se- crets, I might announce that I have made the startling discov- ery that occasionally even lawyers fail to agree as to their in- terpretations of the law, as well as upon questions of policy, and when such contingencies arose, and the committee divided about equally, it devolved upon the laymen to cast the deciding vote. If modesty did not forbid, I would say confidentially to the Members of the House that the most meritorious provisions of the pending bill can of course be traced to contingencies of this character. [Laughter.] The bill is a fulfillment of the pledges of the Republican plat- form of 1908, which declared, in referring to rate legislation : We believe the interstate-commerce law should be further amended, so as to give the railroads the right to make and publish tariff agree- ments subject to the approval of the commission, but maintaining al- ways the principle of competition between naturally competing lines and avoiding the common control of such lines by any means whatso- ever. We favor such national legislation and supervision as will pre- vent the overissue of stocks and bonds by interstate carriers. The pending measure also carries out the recommendations of President Taft in his message to this body on January 7 last, in which he specifically advocated the creation of a commerce court; the right of railroads to make and publish tariff agree- ments; that railroads be compelled to quote correct rates in writ- ing when requested by shippers; that the commission be granted power to act on its own initiative in investigating the fairness of an existing rate or practice, and giving it the additional power, when an increased rate is filed, to enter upon an in- vestigation of the proposed schedule before it goes into effect; that shippers have the privilege of routing; that railroads be 392808903 8 inhibited from acquiring competing carriers, and that legisla- tion be enacted to prevent the overissue of stocks and bonds. The bill likewise embodies practically all the recommendations which the Interstate Commerce Commission has made to Con- gress. The commission, in their report for 1909, say, touching the question concerning the prevention of advances in rates pend- ing investigation: It seems plain to us also that some method should be provided by which railroads can be prevented from advancing their rates or chang- ing their regulations and practices to the disadvantage of the shipper, pending an .investigation into the reasonableness of the proposed change. We have embodied in section 9 of the bill, amending section 15 of the present law, language to carry out this recommendation, and to which I will later refer. In the matter of establishing through routes the report con- tains the following language: This commission now has authority to establish a through route and joint rate " provided no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists." And suggest that this proviso should be eliminated, which the committee has done in section 9, and the commission adds as a further argument in favor of striking out this proviso : We think the commission should have authority to establish through routes and joint rates wherever, upon investigation, it is found that the public necessity and convenience, having due reference to the inter- ests of the carrier, require such action. Touching the right of the shipper to route freight, the com- mission says: There are, however, circumstances under which the privilege of desig- nating the route by which the traffic shall move is a matter of con- venience as well as value to the shipper, and under such circumstances his" right ought to be protected. In section 9 of the bill, amending section 15 in the original act, we carry out this recommendation. Upon the question of orders in proceedings instituted by the commission the following language is used : We believe that wherever it appears, either from a formal complaint filed or from informal complaint received or from the general knowledge of the commission, that a given situation ought to be investigated, the commission should have authority, upon its own motion or by modifying a complaint already filed, to prosecute an adequate inquiry upon notice to the carrier and to make a relieving order if one be required. In section 8b of the bill we have carried out this recommenda- tion. Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the pending measure deal with the question of the overcapitalization of railroads, which the com- mission direct attention to in the following language : The need of exercising control over railway capitalization is again urged upon the attention of Congress. It is my purpose to discuss the bill from the standpoint of the practical business man, dwelling upon those features which, in my opinion, tend to very materially strengthen existing statutes upon the general subject of railroad regulation, curing defects which time and experience have brought to light, and meeting present conditions. The most progressive railroad men to-day are free to acknowledge that they would oppose the re- peal of the Hepburn Act, frankly admitting that it has proved 392808953 5 of value in encouraging honest railroad management, breaking up practices which, in many instances, the railroads were forced to resort to by shippers in order to obtain and hold business, the culpability of shippers being as great as that of carriers. As I personally view the commerce-court provision, if a tri- bunal of this character will tend to expedite the adjudication of cases affecting the question of rates, which will be to the in- terest of the shipper; if it will mean the creation of a body of experts peculiarly qualified to deal with the great problems of transportation, one of the most intricate subjects before the American people to-day, affecting as it does every line of busi- ness; if it will result in a greater uniformity of decisions then, I say, such a court should be given a fai-r trial. For my part I am willing to accept the judgment of President Taft upon this most important feature of the pending bill, for few men have had wider judicial experience and are as well quali- fied to speak touching the necessity for such a court. Mr. SIMS. May I ask the gentleman to give the authority seeking to create a court of that character? Mr. KNOWLAND. I am glad the gentleman has risen, be- cause I wanted to call attention to the fact that when my col- league from Tennessee was upon the floor the other day, in answer to a question by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GILLES- PIE], in which the gentleman from Texas asked if the Inter- state Commerce Commission wanted this special court, and if he knew whether the commission had made any recommendations, the gentleman from Tennessee replied: I certainly do not, and I defy any man to find any evidence in the hearings that points that out. I accept the challenge of the gentleman from Tennessee, and will quote from the testimony of Mr. Knapp, chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which he gave when before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, as found on page 1225 of the hearings: Mr. WASHBURN. Then may I ask you to outline briefly the reasons which have led the commission to the conclusion that the creation of this court is desirahle? Mr. KNAPP. In answer to your question I should like to be definitely understood as giving expression only of my personal views. I regard the creation of a tribunal of this sort as highly important. There are many reasons which bring me to that conclusion. The rather fundamental reason is grounded in the fact that these are all questions of national scope and interest. They are in no sense the local and isolated questions which arise in the ordinary courts. It is important that there be one tribunal of first instance which shall pass upon all these questions so that the determination will be har- monious and consistent, and not as it is now, uncertain and conflicting in different parts of the country. Mr. SIMS. Does he not distinctly disclaim speaking for the commission? Mr. KNOWLAND. He does in what he says personally, but calls attention to the fact of the commission's indorsement of the commerce-court provision, and then he goes on to state that he gives his reasons, which can only be considered as personal reasons and not the reasons which actuated the In- terstate Commerce Commission in indorsing the commerce- court provision. Mr. WANGER. Will my colleague permit a question? 392808953 6 Mr. KNOWLAND. Certainly. Mr. WANGER. Is it not a fact that prior to the statement by Chairman Knapp, in answer to Mr. WASHBURN, he an- nounced to the committee the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission formally and officially taken in approbation of the provision for the commerce court? Mr. KNOWLAND. I am pleased to say that my colleague is absolutely right about that. Mr. WANGER. Subject, however, to the recommendation in favor of the appointment of the judges by the President as the other judges of the United States courts are appointed. Mr. KNOWLAND. The very contention the gentleman from Tennessee made the other day in his opposition to the measure. He wanted to know why the President should make the ap- pointments instead of the judges being appointed in the first instance, or designated by the Chief Justice, while the Inter- state Commerce Commission strongly recommended that these first judges be appointed by the President and not by the Chief Justice, as contended by the gentleman. Mr. SIMS. You mean designated, not appointed. Mr. KNOWLAND. Yes: designated. Mr. SIMS. I understood the gentleman from Texas to say: "Does the commission ask for this court?" I fail to find the commission have ever asked for it. Mr. KNOWLAND. There is no very great distinction be- tween indorsing a proposition absolutely and asking for it. Mr. SIMS. Here is what I wanted to convey: That the commerce court was not a suggestion made up by that commis- sion; that they were not the fathers of the idoa; that it was explained that Mr. TOWNSEND of Michigan was the father of the idea; and I said that it made me think more of it. Mr. KNOWLAND. While I do not claim that the commission fathered the idea, they strongly approved it. Mr. SIMS. Well, I do not think the gentleman will give very much weight to that. The reasons given by a commission which can be removed and enlarged. Mr. KNOWLAND. Evidently the gentleman who asked the question of the gentleman from Tennessee the other day gave weight to that, otherwise he would not have put the question as he did. He wanted to know if it was not a fact that the commission had indorsed the proposition, or agreed to it, or had approvect it, and the gentleman immediately replied that such was not the case. Mr. SIMS. I said it had not. Mr. KNOWLAND. Yes. The gentleman had overlooked just what Commissioner Knapp had said on this particular point. Mr. SIMS. I state frankly I do not recall that Did not Commissioner Clements in his testimony before that state that he was absolutely opposed to their being designated by either the Chief Justice or the President to serve in this particular court? Mr. ADAMSON. Will the gentleman yield to me? The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield to the gentle- man from Georgia? Mr. KNOWLAND. I do. 392808953 Mr. AD AM SON. Mr. Chairman, I can not hear very much of what is being said. I suppose it is the modesty of gentlemen which causes them to speak in such soft voices that we back in the suburbs can not hear them. Do I understand the gentleman from California to be insisting that the Interstate Commerce Commission want this commerce court? Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am simply quoting the testimony before the committee, in which Chairman Knapp advances some of the strongest arguments that have been ad- vanced in any quarter in favor of the creation of the court. Mr. ADAM SON. I listened carefully to the hearings for two or three months and have associated with the members of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and while Chairman Knapp did make a perfunctory statement of that sort, I have never found that the members of the commission were en- thusiastic for this slaughter of the commission. Mr. KNOWLAND. The gentleman, then, is questioning the good faith of the gentlemen of the commission. If they indorse it, as the gentleman claims, and do not mean what they say, then I claim this is a reflection upon the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. ADAMSON. I am neither questioning the good faith of the commission nor of the gentleman from California; but I say, as a Member who heard the evidence and who has associ- ated with the commission, that I fail to discover that the com- mission want this court. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I leave to the Members of the House for their interpretation the statement of Chairman Knapp, of the Interstate Commerce Commission. If languuge can be stronger in approval of any proposition, then I ask the gentleman to point out where such language has been used in favor of this bill. Mr. ADAMSON. I admit the commission want it as much as the railroads oppose it. Mr. SIMS. The gentleman did not answer, though, as to what shipper could bring a suit in this court. Mr. KNOWLAND. It is true a shipper can not bring a suit, but, as I claimed, it is important to him that suits brought by the railroads be expedited. From the standpoint of the shipper, one of the most important provisions of the bill is found in section 8, and relates to the quotation of rates. There is scarcely a Member of this House who has not had brought to his direct attention cases where shippers have met with losses, or suffered great annoyance, by reason of erroneous quotations on the part of carriers. One case cited before the committee where the quotation of an in- correct rate resulted in damage -was that of a firm in Johnstown, Pa., which had a shipment of rails for Whittier, N. C. They wired to Pittsburg for a quotation, received an answer by wire, later confirmed by letter. A reference to the published tariff by the shipper confirmed the rate, and the sale was consum- mated, based on the rate quoted. Before the rails were shipped, however, the firm was notified that the rate had been quoted in error. The agent informed the shipper that an amendment had been made to the tariff advancing the rate $2 a ton, and the 392808953 8 firm stood a loss of $1,500. There was no recourse, as the com- mission could not authorize the railroad to refund the amount, for to do so would necessitate the recognition of a rate which was not legal at the time of the shipment. Innumerable other cases were cited. It is of the utmost importance to a shipper that a correct rate be quoted. . In many instances large sales are lost because the rate erro- neously quoted by the agent of a carrier was in excess of the correct rate, which correct rate was perhaps quoted to a com- petitor seeking to sell the same class of goods to the same customer. It is provided in this section that a common carrier upon written request must state the correct rate in writing be- tween given points, and is under a penalty of $250 if the firm or company making such request suffers damage. Of equal importance to the shipper is the provision which enables the Interstate Commerce Commission to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, as to the fairness of an existing rate or practice. While under existing law the commission had authority to investigate, it was questionable on the part of the commission whether under the fifteenth section it could, after investigation, apply any remedies. It is a protection to the small shipper who may not be able to go to the expense of instituting a complaint, or may not have the knowledge that a rate is excessive. The provision goes still further in the in- terest of the shipper. When a schedule is filed with the com- mission stating a new individual or joint rate, fare, or charge, the commission is given authority upon its own initiative with- out complaint to suspend the operation of the rate, fare, or charge, for a period of one hundred and twenty days while it enters upon a hearing as to the fairness or reasonableness of the proposed schedule. Now, it can not investigate a rate until it becomes effective. Another very meritorious provision is that which confers upon the commission authority to establish through routes and joint classifications and rates. Under the present law only such au- thority is granted where a satisfactory through route does not already exist. In other words, a through route might be estab- lished with a water line and there be a competing water carrier, but the railroad, having an understanding with the particular water carrier, would refuse to establish relations with the com- peting water line, in time possibly driving it out of business. The same would be true of a competing railroad seeking through traffic arrangements. In the making of through routes we provide in the bill in another section that the railroad shall afford reasonable facili- ties for operating such through routes, and exchange, inter- change, and return cars, fair compensation to be provided for the use, injury, or destruction of such cars. One of the most important privileges granted the shipper is that which gives to him the right of routing his freight where two or more routes now exist. It was believed that this right belonged to the shipper prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in what is known as the Citrus Fruit case (200 U. S., 536). The right of the shipper to route is of great importance for many reasons. In the case of perishable fruits and Cali- fornia is vitally interested in this phase of the question it is 392808953 important in routing to consider climatic conditions and quick dispatch. In many large cities certain roads have convenient terminal facilities, which offer great advantages to the consignee in handling the goods after receipt, frequently saving him con- siderable expense. It is important also to shippers to know just what route his freight is taking in order to expedite its move- ment. He can keep in touch with its progress. Frequently a shipment arrives on one line when expected over another, and unnecessary delay results. Without this privilege the shipper may be compelled to patronize roads in bad physical condition, which would mean delay in the movement of freight. With the privilege of routing in the hands of the shipper there will be less incentive on the part of the roads to attempt pooling. There results greater competition among roads for business with the power of routing in the hands of the man who ships, and such competition insures improved service. From my point of view I regard section 12 as one of the most important sections of the bill a bold step in the direction of preventing the future stifling of competition by the common carriers of the country. As the section comes from the House committee it goes much further than contemplated originally, and, what is more, features considered objectionable and tend- ing to weaken the section have been eliminated. The original section provided, and the Senate bill provides, that no railroad corporation which is a common carrier subject to the act to regulate commerce shall hereafter acquire, directly or indi- rectly, any interest of whatsoever kind in the capital stock of any railroad, or purchase or lease any railroad which is di- rectly and substantially competitive with that of such first- named corporation. The House committee added water carriers to the inhibition by adopting the amendments which I proposed to the section. In other words, as the section now reads, no railroad corpora- tion can acquire capital stock in, or purchase or lease, a com- peting water line, nor can a water line acquire a competing rail- road. After July 1, 1911, no officer or director of a railroad or water carrier can serve as an officer or upon the board of directors of a competing line. Water competition is the most powerful and dangerous rival the railroads are called upon to meet, and it necessarily follows that whenever and wherever the opportunity is offered to strangle that competition the shrewd business men who man- age our great railroads are going to attempt to control these water lines either by purchase or lease. We are spending mil- lions upon our waterways. The River and Harbor Committee of this House has announced a policy of annual appropriations. The bill just reported from the Senate committee carries a total of over .$52,000,000 in appropriations and authorizations for rivers and harbors. Since 1896, covering a period of fourteen years, the total amounts actually expended for river and harbor improvements by the Government of the United States have aggregated a grand total of $295,648,021. Four hundred million dollars, in round numbers, will be the total cost of the Panama Canal. Will there accrue to the Na- tion benefits commensurate with such vast expenditures? Not unless we, as Representatives of the people, enact legislation 392808953 10 that will curb the power of the railroads to destroy the water competition which, by the expenditure of these millions, we are seeking to develop. From every section of the country can be cited innumerable cases where attempts are being made to de- prive the people of the advantages of water competition. I am going to mention a few cases that have been brought per- sonally to my attention. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad controls, it is claimed, all freight and passenger boats plying upon the Green and Barren rivers, the termini being Bowling Green, Ky., and Evansville, Ind. This is a territory served almost entirely by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. The rates for the distance carried, I am reliably informed, are the highest of any water line of the entire Mississippi Valley. The same condition, perhaps to a lesser extent, applies upon the traffic of the Tennessee River, this same railroad being an impor- tant factor in the ownership of the St. Louis and Tennessee River Packet Line, there b,eing, I am told, little conflict as to rates. Practically all the steamboat lines from Baltimore to the Maryland Peninsula are under the control of the New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad Company. The Dela- ware and Raritan Canal has been practically put out of service, and the steamship lines to the Eastern Shore are now under the single control of the railroad just mentioned. On the Atlantic coast there is called to my attention the case of the Montauk Steamship Company, which until quite recently was an independent corporation, in competition with the Long Island Railroad Company between New York City and the ter- minal points of Sag Harbor, Greenport, Sea Cliff, and other towns touched by both the railroads and steamship company. Since the acquisition by the railroad of the only water com- petitor it is claimed freight rates have advanced. Along the New England coast the control of competing water carriers by the railroads is notorious. As a specific instance, an unsuccess- ful struggle was carried on for a number of years by the Enter- prise Line plying between Providence, Fall River, and New York in competition with the Fall River Line, of the New Eng- land Navigation Company, controlled by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. In a recent opinion delivered by the Interstate Commerce Commission, from which I quote, in the case of W. J. Jennison Company v. Great Northern Railway Company, the commission sets forth certain facts which strikingly illustrate the effect upon rates resulting from the acquisition of water carriers by railroads : Certain railroads with lines reaching from Chicago to the seaboard, or from Buffalo to the seaboard, own and control practically all of the railroad mileage between Chicago and the seaboard, and also own or control all of the regular lines of package-freight-carrying boats on the Great Lakes. Therefore practically all of the tonnage of wheat and wheat products that is transported either all-rail or lake-and-rail, or rail-lake-and-rail from Minneapolis or Duluth to the seaboard or to New England is transported in whole or in part by these carriers. Prior to the absorption of the lake lines the rail-lake-and-rail and lake-and-rail rates on flour had fluctuated considerably, but, in general, the rail-lake-and-rail rate was a well understood and established differ- ential of 5 cents per 100 pounds under the all-rail rate. Early in 1898, after the railroads had secured control of most of the lake lines, that differential was narrowed to 3 cents by increasing the rail-lake-aud-rail 392808953 11 rate, and in April, 1902, after the railroads had completed their control of the lake lines, it was narrowed to 2 cents by another increase in the rail-lake and-rail rate. Sixty-five per cent of the product of the Min- neapolis mills that goes to the territory east of Buffalo or Pittsburg ia shipped rail-lake-and rail. On the Pacific coast a number of the lines between San Fran- cisco and points in Oregon and Washington are controlled by railroads which are in competition. Between San Francisco and New York, on the Pacific side, it has been generally under- stood that the transcontinental railroads control the Pacific Mail Line. In this connection I want to say that while it is generally claimed that the Southern Pacific Railroad controls a majority of the stock of the Pacific Mail Line, in all fairness I want to quote the testimony of the general manager, who, although he does not deny that the Southern Pacific controls the steamship line, made this statement before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals of the Senate, in March of this year : I would like to say here, under oath, that for the years I have been in the Pacific Mail Steamship Company no officer of the Southern Pacific Company, or any affiliated interest, either an operating officer, traffic officer, or an executive officer, has ever in any way, shape, form, or description given me any instructions in regard to the amount of ton- nage I should handle of the traffic of the Pacific Mail, or attempted in any way, shape, form, or description to influence my judgment in regard to the amount of business by that route. I simply make this statement as a matter of fairness to Mr. Schwerin. I want to say, however, that while it is not charged that the steamship rates are excessive, poor service is afforded, merchants claim, and there have been no striking indications of a fierce competition, to say the least. For years the people of the Pacific coast have been buoyed up with the hope that with the completion of the great Panama Canal, being constructed with the money of the people, a new era of prosperity would dawn for those States bordering upon the Pacific Ocean. Confidently they look to the completion of that great artificial waterway, with the expectation that it will solve that mighty problem of transportaion charges in transcontinental shipping. Shortening the distance between New York and San Francisco 7,813 miles by water when compared with the route by the Straits of Magellan, and bringing San Francisco within fourteen days of New York by steamers mak- ing 16 knots, it is not to be wondered at that the people are, with a keen interest, following the progress of the work on the Isthmus. Our California fresh fruits, in steamers with cold-storage facilities, will reach the eastern markets as quickly as they are now transported by rail, and at greatly reduced rates. Vast possibilities are opened up; but if the transcontinental roads are to be unrestricted in their present practices, if the strong arm of the law can not be invoked to prevent the control of the competing water lines when the canal is thrown open to traffic, then this great waterway, the hope of shippers since its in- ception, will prove of small value as a rate regulator, and the benefits confidently expected will not inure to the shipper or the public. This section in a large measure will meet the conditions. Mr. Chairman, I am not one of those who fear any sinister design or can discover any deep-laid plot in the latter provi- 392808953 12 gions of this section which give to the court of commerce the power of determining, when application is made by common carriers, whether proposed consolidations are in violation of the section. If the section retained provisions it originally contained, I might then have entertained some fear that its effectiveness would be lessened, although the danger would have been slight. I refer particularly to words which were intended to modify the prohibition contained in the first part of the section, the language referred to being that in determin- ing the question of a consolidation the court might consider the relative importance of any benefit to the public interest and of any effect upon competition resulting from such acquisition. These words have been stricken out, and the commerce court can now, I take it, consider only the question as to whether the line to be acquired is directly and substantially competitive. That there should be such a determination is apparent when we take into consideration certain facts. Practically every railroad in the United States, and many water carriers, taken by them- selves and through their connections, might be claimed to be in competition, in the broad sense, with every other road or water carrier. No one, I take it, and particularly no one from the great West, would want to enact a law containing prohibitions of this character, unless there was some elasticity an elasticity that would allow a road to extend its system in the development of a section of the country by acquiring a feeder, for instance, when such feeder was in no sense " directly and substantially," competitive. Prospective purchasers of bonds would unquestionably desire a decision upon this point, and the railroads are entitled to a determination by some competent body. It is in the interest of future railroad development upon which the prosperity of the Nation in such a large measure depends. The determination of the court will be largely upon questions of fact, upon evidence presented, and I have full confidence that the Government, through the Attorney-General and his representatives, will per- form its full duty in presenting evidence, if such evidence is ob- tainable, that the road or water carrier sought to be acquired is directly and substantially competitive with the road of the carrier applying to the court. I am frank to admit that some little doubt exists in my mind as to whether the Interstate Commerce Commission should not be substituted in this section for the commerce court, but I do not regard it as a vital question. It is generally admitted, I think, by those who have studied the transportation problem with care that there exists great need of exercising some kind of control over railroad capitaliza- tion. It is necessary for the protection of the investor, and pne need not bestow much thought upon the problem to realize that such control will have at least an indirect influence upon the question of railroad rates. The latter sections of the bill deal with this subject, and while Congress is entering upon a new field, it is apparent that we are justified, in view of the abuses which have prevailed in the overcapitalization of rail- roads. This bill deals with questions of vital interest to the Amer- ican people. With a full realization of the importance of the 392808953 13 subject the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has given to the various provisions of the bill its best thought. For nearly three months the measure has been before the com- mittee. The printed testimony covers over 1,400 pages. Every line of the bill was considered with the utmost care. The mem- bers of the committee, representing the majority as well as minority,, have been prompted only by the most patriotic mo- tives in their efforts to present to the country a measure in the interest of the people, and one that at the same time attempts to deal justly with common carriers. Where differences of opinion prevailed in the committee they have been honest differ- ences, and the good faith of no member can be questioned. All legislation is a matter of compromise; no important bill ever passed this House, embodying many separate provisions, where every section suited every Member, but we generally ask ourselves if, on the whole, the proposed legislation is not an improvement over existing conditions or statutes, and when we answer in the affirmative, as I believe an overwhelming ma- jority of the membership of this House, taking the broad view and considering the greatest good to the greatest number, in- tends to do in this instance, we will be but continuing those progressive policies which, during the past decade alone, have so redounded to the glory of our Nation. [Applause.] 392808953 o