“The bill which we report to the House, instead of adopting either of these plans, provides that the charges of the railroads shall be reasonable; that persons engaged in the transportation of interstate commerce by railroads shall furnish without discrimination the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, storage and handling of property of a like character, and shall perform with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with contemporaneous transportation.
“These constitute a portion of the leading features of the bill which we report to the House. It is believed that the enactment and enforcement of such a law will provide for the just and necessary abridgment of the monopoly powers of these corporations, and protect the people against unreasonable charges and extortionate exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embarrass the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is reasonable and just they should do. And the Committee believe it wiser and better to provide for the enforcement of the provisions of such a law through the instrumentality of the ordinary courts of justice, and by the judges and juries of the country than by the orders of a commission. The machinery of the courts is already in existence, and will require no additional expense, and is within convenient reach of the people everywhere, and is fully able to adjudicate all cases which may arise under this bill and by methods with which the people are familiar, while no plan of a commission which has been proposed could be conveniently accessible to all the people, and if a plan should be presented which would provide a jurisdiction convenient to all the people it would necessarily be cumbrous and very expensive. In this view a commission is unnecessary, unless it is the purpose of Congress to enter upon the detailed regulation of freight rates.”
[ [95] Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1885 (page xv.) gives a list of Railroads of the United States sold under foreclosure. The following is a brief summary:—
| Mileage m. | Capital Stock. $ | Funded Debt. $ | Floating Debt $ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1882 | 668 | 20,751,457 | 23,999,065 | 10,073,769 |
| 1883 | 1,190 | 24,587,704 | 38,197,926 | 2,481,608 |
| 1884 | 714 | 12,894,000 | 13,061,000 | 422,533 |
[ [96] The railways in this country are governed by directors who have shares in the respective undertakings, and represent the shareholders (assumed to be about 500,000), but generally their interest in the railways is relatively small compared with that which they possess in land, manufactories, collieries, ironworks, and commerce &c., besides which from their local connections, and as public men, they are keenly alive to the requirements of agriculture, trade and commerce, and in reality represent those interests to a much greater extent than is sometimes assumed to be the case.
[ [97] In a case of the kind referred to, which was brought before the Board of Trade when the Bill was before Parliament, as a skilled officer of the company was occupied 150 hours, in preparing the information alone to reply to the Board of Trade, irrespective of the time occupied by others in analysing the information, and in corresponding with the Board of Trade on the subject, all of which had no practical result.
[ [98] In Lees v. Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1 N. & M. 352, the Commissioners relied to some extent upon a principle which they do not appear to have since put in force. The question was whether the company gave an undue and unreasonable preference to the Corporation. The Commissioners said that undoubtedly a preference had been given, but they declined to say it was unreasonable (1) because the Corporation did not compete with the complainants; (2) because the preference was for the public benefit and convenience (p. 367); (3) because of the nature and magnitude of the coal traffic of the Corporation.
[ [99] 2 N. & M. 39.
[ [100] See the head note on the case, and the language of Williams, J.; also the observations of Cockburn, C. J. in Harris v. Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, I. N. and M., p. 703. The latter judge, referring to “fair and sufficient reasons” for differences in rates, says, “As, for instance, in respect of terminal traffic, there might be competition with another railway.”