1849

1859

1869

1879

Live Stock, Milch Cows, | bound to see that justice is done. So much
Value.
for that, which I will again say was quite un-

Number.

16,586,195

217,033

The amount of Indian corn produced in 1879 is about the same as that produced in 1849. The only leading agricultural products of which the annual production has decreased are rye, hops, wheat, cheese, sheep and wool. The decrease in the case of many of the last named articles, and especially in the case of sheep and wool, is to be attributed to circumstances other than the influence of railroads. (See Compendiums of the 9th and 10th United States Census.)

ARGUMENT OF HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
FOR THE VERMONT STATE GRANGE.*

I shall, if it please Your Honors, occupy only a very few moments of your time in discussing this matter. First and principally, because I do not believe it necessary to you, or to the just disposition of this case; secondly, because I do believe it necessary that my honorable opponents and I should get the train and go home this evening.

The Grangers.

First, then, as to the grangers, my clients, in respect to whom my Brother Fifield and the gentlemen on the other side have, from time to time, made observations altogether uncomplimentary, as to their being "mythical," "nonexistent persons," and so forth. All I have to say in reply to that is, that the farmers need no defense from me. They are a good deal more numerous than any other part of the people of the United States. I happened to see in a newspaper this morning an account of a meeting of 45,000 of them in Pennsylvania, the other day. There are a good many of them everywhere, though they do not all belong to organized granges, for the grangers' associations do not embrace all the farmers of the country, any more than the law associa tions embrace all the lawyers. There are a great many persons who have been admitted to the bar who do not belong to any law association; still we are supposed to be entitled to the same rights and privileges as those who are members of a law association. And the farm ers of this country, and of this State, therefore, bave the same rights, whether members of the grange or not. They have the right to associate and defend their interests, the same as the railroads, the clergymen, the manufacturers, the Knights of Labor, or any other members of the community, so that I need not take up any time in vindicating them as standing before you and asking justice at your hands under the law for the classes of industry that they represent. You are here as a public tribunal of investigators, before whom any citizen, or any set of citizens, having a well founded ground of complaint, may come and state their grievances. They are entitled to be heard, and if a wrong is being done to them, you are

*From stenographic notes of John H. Mimms, Esq., St. Albans, Vt.

necessary for my clients.

Scope of the Interstate Commerce Act.

This Act in its

Let us see where we are. first and second sections seems to be couched

in language that is very plain to the unsophis-
ticated mind. It appears to be intended to
regulate and control, according to good meth-
of interstate commerce by railways and water
ods, and consistent with justice, the operations
communications connected with them. So far
as it was possible for Congress, within its con-
stitutional power, to reach every agency en-
gaged in those transactions, it was to be exert-
ed. The object was beneficent and the nature
of the Law was intended to reach, and, so far
as language can go, I think does reach every
operation of interstate commerce that is car-
ried on by no matter how many agents or con-
necting local lines, so that they are engaged in
a continuous transmission of men or things by
any "arrangement," as the Law says, between
them in relation thereto. There can be no es-
cape from the provisions of the Law by any
railroad in the United States, unless it is re-
stricted by its charter and operations to purely
local state business. Every road that provides
facilities for the business of connecting roads,
and engages in the taking of goods out of its
own State on to a railroad in another State, by
any sort of communication or arrangement,
or combination, or understanding, by what
ever contrivance or form it is reached, comes
within the scope of the operation of this Law.
When the States have undertaken to interfere
with the abuses and wrongs that have been
committed all through the country, the su-
preme court, much against its wishes and will,
I believe, was obliged to decide that it was
within the purview of Congress alone. So that
I insist the language of this Act shall be given
the most liberal and benign construction, in
order to work the good effects it was intended
to accomplish. It is not to be construed like
a criminal statute, but every interpretation and
construction that can aid and reach the great
object Congress had in view should be given
to it. Enough for that, because I am confident
Your Honors will all agree with me. I do not
need to resort to any strained interpretation to
apply it to this case. I only make these ob-
servations to state my views of its general pur-
pose and effect.

The Defendant Roads Within the Power and
Provisions of the Act.

In this case we find certain facts sworn to by Mr. Porteous, although he seems to know a good deal less when he is on the witness stand than he does when he is off from it-as careful men sometimes do-and his superior officer, Governor Smith, seems to be affected with the same malady, unlike Mr. Mellen, who spoke fully and frankly, as did Mr. Mills, and these other gentlemen. As I said, we have the facts sworn to by Mr. Porteous, as you will see when you read over the reporter's notes, that in respect to the transmission of business between the places on the line of the Boston & Lowell Road (and by that I will include all from Boston to White River Junction,

without naming the concerns that compose it), | bans, etc.; and the reason it did not combine whether from Boston or any place between was that it had no interest in that matter. If that point and White River Junction, on business going into the State of Vermont, that the two roads have arranged and agreed upon a basis upon which that business shall be done and the prices which shall be paid for it; an arrangement and understanding was arrived at and consummated between the agent of the corporation of the Central Vermont Railroad Company, on the one hand, and the agent of the corporation of the Boston & Lowell Railroad Company, on the other, and perhaps some of the other roads in the route, but mainly be tween the two I have named. That arrangement was made in advance as to what rates should be charged for that joint business, and the division that was to be made from the collection of those rates, as shown by the division list put in evidence. If this is not a joint arrangement (which is more than the Law requires), if it is not an "arrangement," to use the very language of the Law, for the carriage of goods from one State into another over a common line, then there is no language that can be taken out of our English tongue that can accomplish it. And I leave that. That is all I wish to say about that.

The National Despatch Line.

Now, as to this National Despatch Line. That is just the same only it is done in a different form. We have learned from the evidence in this case what this National Despatch Line is. As some of the witnesses stated, it is only a name, or a trademark. But the public have never known what it really is. A well known man in this town, who is a large shipper, said to me that he had sent millions of dollars of freight out of this town by the National Despatch Line, supposing it to be a regularly organized corporation, having a body and capital and officers, and somebody to look to if there was any loss or damage to be made good. He was much amused to find that the National Despatch Line was in reality a good deal better and stronger than he supposed it was in that respect, for it had turned out to be composed of the Boston & Lowell Railroad Company, with all its goods, assets and effects; the Central Vermont, with all its goods, assets and effects; the Grand Trunk Railway and all its belongings, and a good deal better. But we find that this National Despatch Line is simply a name by which these three operating railroads transact through business together; by which they convey freight from Boston to the West, and to Montreal and East, from those places to Boston and eastern points. That brings these roads within the Act, I assume. The question, then, is simply whether, in order to bring any one of them or all of them within the fourth section of this Act, it is necessary that they should all combine in the charging of a greater rate for a shorter distance than for the longer one. If it is necessary that they should all combine, then it is clear to my mind, as my learned friend Strout says, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has not had anything to do in respect of the charges that are to be made between Boston and West Lebanon, or White River Junction, or between Boston and White River Junction, Montpelier, St. Al

you take the proposition. in the reverse, the Boston & Lowell would have no interest whatever and could have nothing to do and would have nothing to do with the question of rates on freight from Toronto or Detroit to Montpelier, although that would have come from a foreign country to the United States. The only way, on that theory of the Law, that you could have the fourth section operate at all would be between two roads in adjoining States who made an interchange, each agreeing that it would charge as a common carrier, so much into the other State, and would collect the carriage money and pay it over. This would bring them within the operation of the Law, I think you will be satisfied, as I certainly am. Take the Boston & Lowell, where Mr. Mellen swears they got once and a half or twice as much for carrying a car load of chairs from Boston to White River Junction, for use there, as they would if the chairs were going to Montreal or beyond. They are hauling the same goods over the same line in the same direction, and the same distance in one case, for less than half what they get in the other. Putting such a construction upon the business as is urged here, there is not a single road in the world, not even between two States, that would be under the provision of section 4, and could not be. But this is the position they take. It is the philosophy and dialectics of sophistry that people who feel the hand of the law and are conscious of doing injustice, resort to-as is fair for counsel if they can persuade anybody to believe it-to escape from a plain responsibility.

The same is true in the reverse order. The Central Vermont will not be liable under that claim, because they have nothing to do with what the Lowell Road gets the moment you cross into New Hampshire, and the Lowell nothing to do with what the Central gets the moment the line of Vermont is crossed the other way. Neither is responsible. It is only necessary to state such a proposition to see the fallacy of it, and make an end of it. Congress has not any power over interstate commerce, if that proposition be correct.

But, if there being any arrangement to do that thing brings them within the jurisdiction and power of Congress, then the doing of it must be within its remedial power of prohibition. And they do it. I will call your attention to the case where the Boston & Lowell, within its own State and its own corporate boundary, makes the rates you have heard in the evidence. It does not charge any more for carrying goods to Manchester than it does to carry them to White River Junction, if it is going to stop there. Mr. Mellen tells you with entire frankness: I get twice as much for doing that thing to White River Junction as I do if it is going to Montpelier. But if it is going to be a purely local, intrastate traffic, then I do not charge any more for carrying a thing to Manchester than to White River Junc tion; but if it is going to be interstate traffic, then I fly directly in the face of the Law. Although it does not appear on my tables, yet as a matter of fact I make an arrangement by which I get twice as much for my short dis

tance as I do for the longer distance of which | the master (as every man has a right to receive I form a component and "arranging" part.

Excusing Circumstances and Conditions. Now, then, we come to the only question in this case, that is under section 4, as to whether it is made out that the circumstances and conditions are such that you are bound to find, or ought to find fairly and justly, that these companies ought to be relieved from this duty. I will say something later upon the question under the other part of the statute. The first reason they urge as an excusing circumstance is the length of their line. I respectfully sub-ulently issued, into innocent hands, I will asmit that the length of line over the same line over which the freight goes any short distance and long distance is no different as to these roads than it can be on any other line in the country. So that length of line only enters as one element in the matter of competition at some distant point of the system, and in no other respect whatever.

profit from his labor which he can sell at any price he chooses to take, or not), will be regulated according to the value of the services performed and not according to the particular circumstances of the person or the corporation who has to perform it. What right has a miller, for illustration, to charge me ten cents a bushel for grinding wheat because there is a mortgage on his mill? What right has a railroad company, like one out in Ohio, managed by Ives, to put its rates up double because double the amount of its stock has been fraudsume; and, therefore, to pay a profit the rates must be raised, and the public made to pay it? What right has a railroad to put up its rates above a fair value for the service performed, because the management has been extravagant or unfortunate, and got itself into debt? I deny the proposition. And I say that in less than ten years, unless the people of the United States have lost their reason, this matter will be dealt with by Congress, as far as they have the power, and you will not be troubled with any question about considerations as to competition. You will only be troubled with the question of what is reasonable according to the value of the service performed, because that stands, and can only stand upon principles that are beyond the reach of any contrivances that men may make.

Then you come to the difficulty of weather and climate. Is that an element that makes a special circumstance and condition over the same line? If I live in the tropics, where there is no snow at all, is it to be said that because it is hotter at one place on the line than it is at another point on the same line, there is a reason for making a difference in the rates to those respective points? Of course not. If I live in the Arctics, as we do here in the winter, does it cost a railroad any more to haul a But we will take it as it is. I say on the short distance through the snow and get its construction of this Law itself, fairly and justcars out of the snow banks than it does to haul ly, on the special circumstances and condiit a longer distance over the mountains in the tions, that the fact that there is competition, winter? It must costs less, under the cir- although it is the strongest that there is, is yet cumstances, for the shorter distance. The the very smallest of elements that should enter idea, therefore, that the snow or the grades into the considertion of this question. The claim has anything to do with this question of object and purpose of Congress in making use charging more for a short distance than for of that phrase was to guard against some exa longer one over the same line, is preposter-treme and possible circumstances that could ous, with all respect to the honored gentlemen on the other side.

Troo Sides to the Question.

not be foreseen. It was intended that those special circumstances and conditions related to the work and the service to be done, and the relations of the parties between whom and by whom it was to be done, and not the relations either of the shippers to the business, or the railroad to its competitors, its enemies or its. friends.

There are two sides to the subject of money making and profits, it might be added. These railroads appeal to you to allow them to make a fair profit, as much as they fairly and reasonably can. That is proper enough. But they But we will suppose it is not so. We will owe the same duty to their customers, and you suppose that competition is an element to be owe the same duty to their customers. The considered. Where would you find yourselves, weather is no colder for the railroads in Ver- then, upon any such competition as exists mont than it is for the farmer. It is no colder here? Here is this line, and here are the other in Vermont in the winter for the railroad, than lines in New England competing for this trafit is for the manufacturer, or the passenger, or fic; the lines from Boston to the West crossing anybody else. They are all under precisely the State of New York, or from Baltimore to the same conditions on the same line, as of to the West, from Savannah to the West and course they must be. Therefore, all those con- East and North and South. Every road can siderations fail, entering for what they are say the same thing and be excused from comworth merely into the consideration of compliance with the requirements of the Law. petition at a distant point.

Now, then, I submit with great respect, and I think it will turn out to be so in the next ten years, not upon any supposed construction of this Law that you may make, or upon any too extended a construction of it, but as a fact in the social economics of this country, resting upon justice which gives to every man his due and fair play to all, that every service that a railroad or any body else does for another under public regulations, and of which he is not

As

an illustration of my idea, take the Passumpsic line, if that be an independent one. It will form a good basis for example because it is a parallel line to the Central Vermont in this same north country, and a competitor with the Central Vermont. If a charge were brought against the Passumpsic, that road would say: I am in competition. You must not touch me. I must charge more for the shorter than for the longer distance, because there is such a strong competition to contend against. The

Looking over the whole ground it seems to us that if we can prevail on Mr. Hickson to agree to Believing that the existing difficulties in regard this schedule, you should agree, as well for your to the transportation of east bound traffic are not own interests as those of all the other lines in the understood as thoroughly as they should be, and country, to make this adjustment: and if it is made that these differences should be adjusted on a basis that the Grand Trunk route should then become of equity to all interests, we have, through tele- one of the eastern trunk lines, and be a part of the graphic correspondence, requested Mr. Hickson of organization for making and adjusting rates and the Grand Trunk Line, and Gov. Smith of the Vt. classifications from time to time, on the general Central, to meet us in New York and talk the sub-basis that has prevailed among the four trunk lines ject over, to see whether we could not arrive at during the past year. some satisfactory basis of adjustment.