VIEWS OF MR. MOON, OF TENNESSEE.

Mr. Moon, of Tennessee, submitted the following individual views: The section of the bill appropriating $142,000 for necessary and special facilities on trunk lines from Washington to Atlanta and New Orleans, and $25,000 to Kansas City, Mo., and Newton, Kans., railroads, should be stricken out. The proviso in this section that it shall not be expended unless the Postmaster-General shall deem it necessary is practically a direction to him to expend it, whatever the conditions may be, for the Postmaster-General has not at any time, and does not now, recommend this appropriation, but says that it is a hindrance to the proper administration of the office, as no other railroad gets the additional pay, but that Congress putting it in the bill when not asked for, he regards it as mandatory to expend it, and does not treat the proviso as merely directory.

It is bad business policy to give a bonus to one or two roads and not to others doing the same work in the same time in as good or better manner.

These two are the only subsidized roads in the United States, this vicious policy having been abandoned as to all other roads.

These roads receive compensation for carrying the mail under the statutes just as the other roads do, and this compensation is full and adequate as to all roads. The extra amount provided for them in this bill is purely a gift.

These roads do not furnish any facilities that many other roads do not furnish. They have a special train which carries the mail and express and on a part of the line passengers. Other roads do the same thing exactly.

The proof shows that the roads connecting the Southern fast mail are for the most part owned by this same road, and that the-connecting lines are so run that mail was delayed in November, December, and January last from fifty minutes to eight hours on an average of twenty-six days in each month at one main point of distribution where eight or nine railways carry the mail, distributing it over a great part of the territory alleged to be benefited by this service. It is of little consequence that the Southern (or subsidized main line) is on time if the connections owned by it or made with it are run late and the people do not get the mail. The fines imposed on the main line show that it runs slow very often. Still, the extra pay will permit of very heavy fines and still leave the road a profit but no benefit to the public.

I object to paying these roads this large amount of money to induce them to do that which by law and good morals under the statutory contract they are bound to do-- that is, to carry the mail with reasonable expedition. This subsidy was in part paid at one time to the road from Washington to New York, but it is now paid from Washington to New Orleans only, the first-mentioned roads declining to longer

28

accept it, as I am informed. At any rate there is no provision in the bill for the line between Washington and New York. The old reason given for this subsidy was that it was necessary to control and fix the schedule of a fast mail train from New York in business interests. This can not be done now, as the train starts from Washington and the Government does not control the New York connections. All of these claims are pure subterfuges to justify, if possible, the most unjustifiable section, in my opinion, ever openly incorporated in any decent bill. From the best information I can obtain the Kansas City donation is only a contribution to the railroad people for the indirect benefit of Kansas City newspapers. However this may be, it rests on the same pernicious policy that supports the Southern subsidy.

There is another provision in the bill which authorizes a contract with the Central Railroad of New York to erect a building over its tracks. in New York for use in part by the United States postal authorities at an annual rental of $90,000, on a lease for a term of fifty years. This provision to my mind is objectionable on account of the long term proposed and the increased cost incident thereto. Then the facts before the committee are so meager as not to furnish a sufficient basis, in my judgment, for intelligent action in this matter, it being a new proposition submitted since the subcommittee had practically passed upon this bill and not very fully investigated.

I am opposed to tying the hands of the Department for fifty years on this or any other proposition.

JOHN A. MOON.

2d Session.

No. 1389.

ITALIAN-SWISS AGRICULTURAL COLONY.

MARCH 5, 1904.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LIND, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following

REPORT.
POR

[To accompany H. R. 11370.]

The Committee on Claims, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 11370) to relieve the Italian-Swiss Agricultural Colony from the internal-revenue tax on certain spirits destroyed by fire, find the facts fully and accurately set forth in the letter of the honorable Commissioner of Internal Revenue, dated January 19, 1903, printed herewith, and recommend the passage of the bill.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Washington, January 19, 1903.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a bill (H. R. 14914) to relieve the ItalianSwiss agricultural colony from internal-revenue tax on certain spirits destroyed by fire, referred by Hon. Joseph V. Graff, member of Congress, chairman of the Committee on Claims, to this office on the 15th instant for examination and report.

The bill provides for the abatement of $956.89 tax assessed on 10 barrels (869.9 gallons) of grape brandy withdrawn from the company's distillery at Asti, Cal., September 12, 1899, for use, free of tax, in the fortification of pure, sweet wines at winery No. 109, located at Madera in that State.

From the records of this office, and from evidence filed with a claim for abatement of this tax, it appears that the brandy in question was a part of a lot of 87 barrels removed by the company from its distillery for the purpose above stated; that this brandy was shipped to Madera, Cal., over the Southern Pacific Railroad; that on reaching that point, September 20, 1899, and while on board car No. 19054, one of the barrels fell from the upper tier, in consequence of a “sudden jerk of the car,' and that on opening the car an explosion (caused by the spirit vapor coming in contact with a lighted lantern) occurred, resulting in the total destruction of the 10 barrels referred to.

There being no statutory provision for abatement of tax on spirits lost in transit to a winery, a bill (H. R. 8159) similar to the one now submitted was introduced in Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and on being referred to this office was reported upon adversely in office letter addressed to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury under date of April 13, 1900. The objection offered to the bill was mainly on the ground that the loss of the spirits was due to negligence on the part of the transportation company, and that the claimants had their remedy against the company for the loss thus sustained by them.

From a letter addressed to the general freight agent by Mr. William F. Herrin, of the law department of the Southern Pacific Company, under date of March 19, 1902, a copy of which letter has been recently filed in this office, it appears that under the shipper's order, signed By claimants in the case, the company was not to be liable for damage caused by fire, and that under the statute of California such an agreement is valid as to any such loss not caused by gross negligence of the carrier. Blank forms of bills of lading were also submitted with that letter, on which is printed for signature of the shipper a "release," in which the shipper agrees that "none of said carriers is to be liable for any loss or damage of any kind, except such as may be caused by its gross negligence." On examination of these forms, it, however, appears that the same were adopted or printed in the one case (specially adapted for shipments of brandy for fortifying wines) September 24, 1899, and in the other case (for brandy forwarded to special bonded warehouse) February 2, 1900, or, in both cases, subsequent to the loss of the spirits in question.

Upon a careful review of this case, I am, however, of the opinion that while the loss of these spirits was due to a want of proper care, either in storing the packages or in handling the train on which the spirits were being transported, the negligence shown was not of such a gross character as would render this company liable on that ground; and if, under the laws of California, the company, at the time this loss occurred, was not so liable, I see no reason why the relief asked for should not be granted.