specifying the route for the proposed branch, the bill provided for a maximum freight rate of 25 cents per ton and a passenger fare of the same amount. The distance was about four miles. There was much discussion concerning a section on taxation; but the most interesting part hangs around an amendment proposing that all provisions of the act should be inoperative unless the road pro-rated passenger fares and checked baggage through with all railways terminating at Washington, Alexandria, or Baltimore. Mr. Kennedy (Md.), who represented the railway's interests, was on his feet at once with the words: "I hope that amendment will not be adopted. I do not really see what the great Senate of the United States has got to do with checking baggage on roads in other states." Mr. Kennedy was backed by the senators from the South and those of like mind. Mr. Douglass (Ill.) opposed the amendment as being too far-reaching. Mr. Green (Mo.) was against it: "It is true, we have a right to impose terms and conditions within this district; but to impose terms and conditions on a business a thousand miles off, or anywhere beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government (!), is certainly wrong." Mr. Yulee (Fla.) expressed the idea of many others when he said, "I think all these matters may properly be left to arrangement among the companies themselves. We ought not to interfere with them." On the other hand, Mr. Cameron (Pa.)—who, it will be noted, had the interests of rival Pennsylvania lines at heart-led the defence. He explained that the Baltimore and Ohio refused to check baggage through when the trip was partly over a competing line, and that congressmen traveling west via Baltimore, for instance, had to re-check their baggage at that point if they took the Pennsylvania Central or Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne. This meant vexatious delay and was discriminatory. As Mr. Doolittle (Wis.) said, . . It is not for the simple question of checking baggage that we want to put a little restriction upon this great mammoth corporation that is taxing every passenger that goes over it a much higher rate than is charged upon railroads generally." Between these extremes was a group which agreed that the proposed amendment was of rather an extraordinary character, but thought the nature of the case required it. In other words, their strict constructionist scruples were overcome by the desirability of doing away with the checking evil or by hostility to the Baltimore and Ohio's monopoly. With the pro-rating clause omitted, the amendment was agreed to and the bill containing a regulation of inter-state commerce, passed the Senate by a vote of 30 to 15. The House however, referred the bill to the committee on the District of Columbia and took no further action. How sharply party lines were drawn in the debates of these late ante-bellum days is well indicated in the course of this bill. A proviso that Congress might repeal the charter which it was proposed to give was closely contested, and, by a strictly party vote of 21 to 20, the Senate decided that Congress could only provide for the limitation or alteration, not the repeal, of a charter.38 A senator remarked that this vote furnished a most instructive lesson in political history: the whole Democratic party, which had formerly stood for limiting corporations, voting solidly to put control of the corporation beyond the power of Congress. AUTHORIZING PASSENGER DEPOTS IN WASHINGTON The Baltimore and Potomac Company, having gained access to Washington, next required depot rights, and was not slow in asking for them. Accordingly, in 1871, we find Congress passing an act, supplementary to the act of 1867 authorizing the Baltimore and Ohio's extension, which allowed the railway to erect a passenger depot over its tracks on Virginia Avenue between Sixth and Seventh streets. The location, however, proved to be not sufficiently central, and at the next session came the fight for the location nearer Pennsylvania Avenue later occupied by the Pennsylvania railway. The company first got the approval of the board of aldermen and common council of the city of Washington. Then House bill No. 2187 was introduced and passed, by a vote of 115 28 Ibid., p. 178. CHAPTER XVI THE MAIL SERVICE AND RAILWAY REGULATION It is the aim of the following chapter to sketch the ways in which the desire of our government for the safe and speedy transportation of the mails has figured in the aggregate of motives which has led to railway regulation. The mail service has been an important point of contact between the government and the railway from early times; today the chief instrument of that service is the railway, and about two per cent. of the aggregate gross earnings of the railways of the United States is received for transporting the nation's mail. REGULATION PRIOR TO 1850 All the material concerning the railway service to be gathered from congressional sources mainly falls under two heads: aid and regulation. Down to the Fifties, the attitude of Congress was predominantly one of granting aid, and propositions for regulation were generally coupled with such grants. In 1819 one of the grounds for a petition from one, Benjamin Dearborn, for aid to his contrivance for steam transportation was the belief that it was well calculated for the conveyance of the mails; one of the objects of the Survey Bill of 1824 was the necessity for transporting the public mail; and, in 1825, the House resolved to inquire into the utility of railways "as a mode of conveyance for the mail in carriages." Finally the great land grant of 1850 made stipulations concerning the mail service to be rendered by the recipient. Between 1840 and 1850 Congress definitely rejected the idea of demanding free mail service. Very early the exactions of the railways, real or supposed, city or county had ever subscribed to a railway's stock without being a loser by it, the bill was passed.42 It authorized a subscription of $600,000; but imposed several conditions: $1,000,000 must first be paid in by private parties and be expended in construction, the company was to give bonds for $800,000 to insure completion in three years, and no bonds issued by the district to raise the amount of its subscription could be sold below par. Later an unsuccessful attempt was made to repeal this act of authorization.43 In the case of the Washington and Ohio Railroad Company, Congress withstood repeated efforts to obtain its authorization for a subscription by the city of Washington and the federal government. SUMMARY There remains but to mention the fact that Congress has authorized and minutely regulated the various street railways of the district, beginning in the early Sixties, and the main outline of railway affairs within the District of Columbia is sufficiently clear. Congress has authorized extensions of railways into the district; and within Washington city; has incorporated railways; has authorized subscriptions to their stocks. In doing these things construction has been regulated and streets and parks and bridges safeguarded; fares, rates, and checking baggage have been controlled; and the lengthy discussions over railway affairs in the District of Columbia must have formed no small part of the railway atmosphere of Congress. It was in debate over such bills that, in 1872, a senator impatiently exclaimed, "It seems impossible to get attention to anything but railroad bills. "45 Similarly, in the territories Congress has incorporated railways and regulated incorporation by the territories themselves. Rates have been regulated; and, in general, Congress' relation to territories has been fruitful of railway debate. 42 Cong. Globe, 1871-72, Sen. bill no. 691. Statutes at Large. 17: 158. 43 H. Jr., 1874-75, p. 260. See index to bills, H. bill, no. 4290. 4 See Cong. Globe, 1870-71, pp. 593, 1885; S. Jr., 1874-75, p. 88. Ibid., 1871-72, June 6,-Anacostia and Potomac River R. R. Co. CHAPTER XVI THE MAIL SERVICE AND RAILWAY REGULATION It is the aim of the following chapter to sketch the ways in which the desire of our government for the safe and speedy transportation of the mails has figured in the aggregate of motives which has led to railway regulation. The mail service has been an important point of contact between the government and the railway from early times; today the chief instrument of that service is the railway, and about two per cent. of the aggregate gross earnings of the railways of the United States is received for transporting the nation's mail. REGULATION PRIOR TO 1850 All the material concerning the railway service to be gathered from congressional sources mainly falls under two heads: aid and regulation. Down to the Fifties, the attitude of Congress was predominantly one of granting aid, and propositions for regulation were generally coupled with such grants. In 1819 one of the grounds for a petition from one, Benjamin Dearborn, for aid to his contrivance for steam transportation was the belief that it was well calculated for the conveyance of the mails; one of the objects of the Survey Bill of 1824 was the necessity for transporting the public mail; and, in 1825, the House resolved to inquire into the utility of railways "as a mode of conveyance for the mail in carriages." Finally the great land grant of 1850 made stipulations concerning the mail service to be rendered by the recipient. Between 1840 and 1850 Congress definitely rejected the idea of demanding free mail service. Very early the exactions of the railways, real or supposed, |
