mittee on roads and canals the new committee to handle railway legislation did not appear until several years later — submitted a report in which strong reasons were advanced in favor of a liberal interpretation of the powers of congress over interstate commerce.1 The committee had been instructed to inquire whether congress had power to regulate interstate railways so as to secure safety of passengers, uniform and equitable rates, and adequate connections with other railways. An affirmative answer was given to every one of these points of inquiry, but the committee did not report a bill. This they refused to do because the requisite facts for the drafting of such a bill were not at hand. Instead, it was recommended that another committee be appointed to collect the data necessary for intelligent action. Meanwhile the Patrons of Husbandry had come upon the scene. From 1867 to 1872 the founders of the order struggled chiefly alone. In 1872 the state grange of Iowa was founded, and by the close of that year about thirteen hundred granges had been organized in various parts of the country. In two years more the order had spread over the whole country, with an aggregate of over 20,000 lodges. In 1874 the Grand Master's address 2 alluded to exorbitant and varying rates, discriminations, and uncertainties. "When we plant a crop

1 E. J. James, The Railway Question, Am. Ec. Ass'n, 1887.

2 Proceedings, National Grange of Patrons of Husbandry, 1874,

P. 14.

we can only guess what it will cost to send it to market, for we are the slaves of those whom we created. . . . In our inmost soul we feel deeply wronged at the return made for the kind and liberal spirit we have shown them" (i.e. the railways). Sentiments like these, frequently expressed in vehement language and repeated time without number in subordinate granges, created a profound influence on public opinion and political parties. Congress was petitioned to establish a department of agriculture, to revise the patent laws, improve the Mississippi River, and above all to enact suitable railway legislation. "We hold each senator and representative responsible for his action upon the subject-matter" set forth in the resolutions. The President's message of December, 1872, gave the stimulus to the appointment of a Senate committee of seven known as the Windom committee. The report of this committee "is interesting because it contains the first presentation of a comprehensive plan of regulation of the whole subject of commerce between the states, as it has constituted itself since the introduction of the railway."1 The primary view of the report was low rates and the preservation of competition. The crisis of 1873 tended to divert attention from discriminations and other abuses to the absolute level of rates, it being assumed that cheap rates would afford relief. Among the measures recommended by the Windom committee were publicity 1 E. J. James, The Railway Question, p. 35.

? longer

of rates; prohibition of combinations, stock-watering, and a greater charge for a shorter haul over the same line; reforms in the shipment of grain and in the operation of freight lines; and, finally, the establishment of a bureau of commerce. In the meanwhile states like Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota resorted to vigorous and even drastic legislation. Public opinion in the rural districts had reached a white heat. Men in public life dependent upon popular suffrage vied with one another to meet the wishes of the "grangers" and their friends. The indiscriminate distribution of seeds was an incident in this general rivalry to satisfy, conciliate, and appease. In 1878 the Reagan bill, one of the forerunners of and a contributor to the present interstate commerce law, was first introduced. Uninterrupted discussions in and outside of Congress resulted in the appointment of the Cullom committee, whose report is in a sense the corner-stone of the act to regulate commerce. The report was made in 1886. The chief ground of contention was shifted from the level of rates to that of discriminations in their various forms. Great railway combinations had been formed. Through rate necessities of competitive markets, areas, and railways had reduced rates on staple commodities, especially on grain and other agricultural products shipped in large quantities. Fierce railway wars had been fought and abnormally low rates enforced during the periods of conflict. Individual railways, individual shippers, and certain localities rose and

fell with the fortunes of the railway wars. All this tended to concentrate public attention upon the abuses of reckless railway administration. These abuses are reflected in detail in the volume of testimony accompanying the report of the committee. The report proper refers to the exclusive privileges enjoyed by railways and the public func tions which they perform. These make the relations and obligations of railways to the community and to the governmental authority something very different from those of the ordinary corporation, and upon such differences both the necessity and justice of regulation rest. Similar ground was taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case of Munn vs. Illinois: "When the owner of property devotes it to a use in which the public has an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in such use, and must, to the extent of that interest, submit to be controlled by the public, for the common good, as long as he maintains the use. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use." The committee further pointed out the differences between investments in railway and ordinary business enterprises; they emphasized the public nature of the railway business, making railways quasi public servants with power to levy a tax; and, finally, the committee asserted that railways have a right to protection by the state in the enjoyment of their chartered privileges. The importance of lakes, rivers, and 1 94 U.S. 113.

! canals is recognized, and the doctrine of competition. among railways adhered to. On the whole, the ideas expressed in the report convey a feeling of uncertainty with respect to the exact nature of the legislation required and the probable efficacy of such legislation. This uncertainty prevailed throughout the debates on the bill which finally became law, and which, together with the two amendments, will be found verbatim in Appendix IV. It remained to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the courts to give definiteness to the provisions of the law. The manner in which this has been done will be shown in the following chapters.