of railroad
regulation.

The provisions of the Act of 1887 are too well known to need any
recital here. In a word, it was partly declaratory of the common
law, its essential features being that railroad charges must be
reasonable; that there must be no discriminations between persons
and no preference between localities; railroads were prohibited
from charging less for a long haul than for a shorter haul, "included
within it under substantially similar circumstances"; pooling was
prohibited; and a commission was established with power to hear
and decide complaints, to make investigations and reports, and
generally to see to the enforcement of the Act.

Considering the abuses that existed, the Act of 1887 was conservative
legislation, but in Congress and among the people generally it was
considered radical, until the courts robbed it by judicial construction
of much of its intended force. During the debates, Senators remarked
that never in the history of governments was a bill under consideration
which would inevitably affect directly or remotely so great financial
and industrial interests. It marked the beginning of a new era in
the management of the railway business of the United States. It
was the beginning of Governmental regulation which has finally
culminated in the legislation of the Sixty-first Congress. And it
is no little satisfaction to me to say that the fundamental principles
of the original Act of 1887 have been retained in all subsequent
acts. No one has seriously advocated that the fundamental principles
of the Act of 1887 be changed, and subsequent legislation has been
built upon it.

After the passage of the original Act of 1887, a permanent Interstate
Committee of the Senate, of which I had the honor to be chairman,
and in which position I remained for many years, was created. It
was a very active committee at first. Necessarily, amendments were
made to the law, and the railroads generally observed the law in
good faith. Even the long-and-short-haul clause was observed, as
it was intended by Congress that it should be. That is, the
railroads did not set up at first that competition would create a
dissimilarity of conditions and circumstances so as to justify them
in charging more for the short haul than for the long haul. But
it was not many years before the railroads attacked first one and
then another provision of the law, and they generally secured
favorable decisions from the courts