a railway from Chicago to New York;20 which petition recited the increase in population, in demand for transportation facilities, and in rates; stated that warehouses in Chicago were so completely filled as to partially suspend business; and asked that, if Congress could not build a road, it would charter a company for that purpose and establish rates of toll. At about the same time Mr. Hurlbut (Ill.) introduced a bill (H. R. 1194) for chartering a double-track freight railway from tidewater on the Atlantic to the Missouri river and to limit rates of freight thereon.21 This bill was the most prominent of the measures of this kind. It was referred to the committee on railroads and canals, reported and re-committed,-other bills of like character being brought before the committee. In their report the committee stated that while some relief might come from rate regulation this would be a mere palliative. No really cheap transportation could be obtained on existing railways; for they were built for local purposes and did not have the best gradients possible. Above all the combination of freight and passenger service on the same line made the cheapest rates possible. On the trunk lines six different classes of trains were run, each interfering with all the rest.

THE CONTINENTAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Hurlbut's bill seems to have been presented in behalf of a corporation known as the Continental Railway Company. This company had furnished evidence of corporate rights under the laws of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, covering the line of road which it was proposed to build; and had expressed willingness to submit to congressional rate regulation, a maximum rate on bulky products amounting to less than half the existing rate to be fixed. In return, the company asked Congress to make the enterprise a national one to the extent of guaranteeing 5 per cent interest on $20,000 per mile of single track, offering to give as security a prior lien on their realty.

20H. Misc., 1873-74, no. 70.

21 H. Jr., 1873-74, p. 219.

This Continental company was composed of several railway corporations deriving their charters from the states through which they ran and duly consolidated to form a continuous through line from the eastern border of Pennsylvania to Council Bluffs as early as 1872.22 In 1873 it purchased and consolidated with the New Jersey Tube Transportation Company and that consolidation was duly authorized by New Jersey. A branch was projected from Rensselaer, Ind., to Chicago. In 1874 the company stated that it had made an examination for a railway between New York Bay and Council Bluffs with the result that only 96 miles would be consumed in curvature and the distance be reduced to 1224 miles, 123 miles less than the Pennsylvania's shortest route. Subsequent survey had proved that the maximum grade would not exceed 30 feet to the mile going east, nor 40 feet going west. It had surveyed and located 450 miles, had graded and bridged 100 miles, and had secured right of way for 900 miles. When completed, 33-ton locomotives would haul trains of forty 10-ton cars at a speed of ten miles an hour over rails weighing 68 pounds per yard, the rate to be 6 mills in summer and 7 mills in winter, with a reduction whenever net earnings exceeded 8 per cent on the capital stock.

Though merely recommitted at the 1873-74 session, Mr. Hurlbut's bill (H. R. 1194) was again reported at the following session.23 Here, however, its course was finished and Congress never aided the Continental Railway Company.

FURTHER AGITATION FOR FREIGHT RAILWAYS

That the advocacy of a scheme for a government freight railway, backed as it was by so numerous and respectable a following, did not cease to be agitated, is evidenced by other bills. In 1876 Mr. Hurlbut (Ill.) introduced another bill2 (H. R. 1490) which, upon being referred to the committee on railroads and canals was reported with a substitute (H. R. 2929). Mr.

22 Rep. of Sen. Select Committee on Transp. Routes to the Seaboard, 1874, Appen.. pp. 159, 154.

23 H. Jr., 1874-75, p. 84.

24 Cong. Rec., 1875-76, p. 590; H. Rep. no. 360.

Jones (Ky.) was its sponsor.25 The substitute bill provided for seven commissioners to be appointed one each by the governors of the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa; they were to form a corporation under the name and style of the United States Railway Corporation. The corporation was to finance and construct a doubletrack railway from New York to Council Bluffs with branches to St. Louis and Chicago. The road was to be of 60-pound steel rails and have the lowest grades, and easiest curves possible. The estimated rate would be 211⁄2 mills per ton mile. The cost was estimated at $35,000,000, and the large number of petitioners from many states insured, the committee thought, the ready sale of the corporation's securities. This committee, it is interesting to note, reports that experience with the Erie Canal, showing as it did a relative decline in traffic, proved that canals can not compete successfully with railways under the modern improvements in railway freight transportation.26

At the special session in 1877, at least three different bills were introduced, none of which were passed. One of them (H. R. 1506) introduced by Mr. Sleicher (Tex.), was taken up in 1878 at the following session.27 A report of the committee on railways and canals favoring the bill shows it to have been similar to the Jones substitute in 1876. In 1878, too, a bill (H. R. 2599) organizing the National Railway Company of the United States of America for the purpose of constructing a double-track freight railway from the Atlantic sea-board to Chicago, St. Louis, and Council Bluffs, and to regulate it in the interests of commerce among the states, was introduced.28 With the growth of commerce and the settlement of the West even larger projects were put forth and at the 1883-84 session a bill for a double-track railway from New York to San Francisco. "was introduced.29

25 Cong. Rec., 1875-76, pp. 2007, 2270.

H. Rep., 1875-76, no. 360.

27 H. Rep., 1877-78, no. 379.

28 H. Jr.. 1877-78, p. 244.

22 Ibid., 1883-84, p. 1172.

PROPOSED FORTY-FIRST PARALLEL RAILWAY-NARROW GAUGE FAD

Of similar significance to the agitation for a double-track freight railway were bills introduced in 1874 and 1875 for chartering the so-called Forty-first Parallel Railway Company of the United States of America. In the House Mr. McCrary (Ia.) introduced the bill and it was referred to the committee on railways and canals, of which he was a member.30 When reported, it was merely recommitted. In the Senate the bill was first referred to the select committee on transportation routes to the sea-board, then to the committee on railroads, which committee reported against its passage.31

The general nature of the bill was as follows. It provided for the construction of a railway of three-foot gauge extending from Toledo, O., along or near the forty-first parallel to Council Bluffs, with an extension to New York.32 The government was to have free mail and telegraph service; passenger rates were to be 2 cents per mile for distances over one hundred miles; and a maximum freight rate for distances of from 500 to 600 miles was to be fixed at 6 mills per ton-mile, the rate increasing as the length of shipment decreased. On west-bound freight 30 per cent. might be added.

The company asked an appropriation of $10,000 per mile. At this time the fad for constructing narrow-gauge roads was just beginning in the United States-a fad which culminated in the construction of at least 5,267 miles of narrow-gauge railway in the year 1880.33 It is evidence of the significance of a congressional history that this fad found early expression in Congress. It was largely due to the demand for cheap transportation and especially transportation to the sea-board. At this time the crisis of 1873 had not been recovered from and it was difficult to find means for constructing railways; hence the narrow-gauge was advocated because of its lower cost both in construction and operation.

80 H. Jr., 1874-75, p. 72.

31 Sen. Jr., 1874-75, pp. 94, 181, 219.

33 H. Rep., 1874-75, no. 156.

33 Ringwalt, Trans. Systs. in the U S., p. 223.

The House committee, though it reported against aiding the Forty-first Parallel scheme, stated its belief to be that narrowgauge roads were destined to become the important, if not the controlling, element in the solution of the problem of transportation, i. e., cheap transportation. The cost of existing roads was too great and their profits were exorbitant. The average cost of standard gauge railways was $42,000 and $50,000 per mile, for iron and steel respectively; narrow gauge would cost but 50 to 60 per cent of this. The operating ratio on the best roads of standard gauge was 64 per cent; the Denver and Rio Grande, a narrow-gauge road, was operated with an expenditure amounting to only 50 per cent of its gross earnings.34 The committee stated its belief that the several states had done all in their power to place the carrying trade in the hands of a few corporations.

Another narrow gauge project which came before Congress at about this time was the Washington, Cincinnati, and St. Louis Railroad Company, bills for aiding this company to construct a road from tidewater to St. Louis and Chicago being introduced.35

THE HOUSE PASSES GRANGER REGULATION: 1874

Thus far only that Granger activity which sought a remedy for transportation ills in government competition has been touched upon; but, though cheap transportation gained through government waterways and freight railways was the dominant ideal, restrictive regulation similar to that being passed at the time by Granger state legislatures was also advocated by many. In 1874 the House passed the so-called McCrary Bill by a vote of 121 to 11636-one of the most notable attempts to regulate railway rates prior to the Interstate Commerce Act. The bill forbade unreasonable charges and provided for a board of railway commissioners with power to make a schedule of reasonable maximum rates.37

4 For further discussion of narrow-gauge see H. Rep., 1875-76, no. 346. 35 H. Jr., 1874-75, p. 60; Sen. Jr., 1874-75, p. 49.

36 Cong. Rec., 1873-74, p. 2493.

87 Ibid., p. 1945; see also below, p. 283.