SPEECH OF WM. H. BRAWLEY
— r v <£
in the
HODSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF SOOTH CAROLINA
on the
BILL TO CREATE A RAILROAD COMMISSION,
December 15th, 1882.
/
J
Mr. Speaker : It is well for us before we enter upon this discus¬
sion to understand precisely the relations between the State and the
Railroads. • ^
It would be useless and superfluous to comment on the great bene- ^
fits received by the people of South Carolina from the building of
Railroads within her borders, as this is a point upon which there is-
no difference of opinion.
Now, what has the State done for the Railroads ? We may leave-
out of view the exceptional cases wherein the State has guaranteed
the bonds of the Companies. These bonds have been in the main Jk
paid by the Companies themselves, and no liability has fallen upon the ~J
State. In the few cases wherein liability has accrued, the State refuses
to admit it and the same has not been enforced against it, excepting q j >
the single case of the guaranty on the Spartanburg and Union Road, " J
which has been settled, after a fashion, but is not now admitted as
precedent. Every Railroad in South Carolina has been built by pri- ^
vate capital. ? ^
The State has not contributed one dollar, excepting to the Blue ':> yNj
Ridge Railroad, which is so far a dead enterprise, that it may be left (Jl
out of consideration.
All that the State has done has been to grant charters which au-
thorized corporations to which private individuals have contributed \ 'V
the money which gave them life. It has granted to these corpora- fy* J}
tions the right of way, but in all cases this right of way has been f A
paid for at its full value, in some cases, as I happen to know, at prices U—
greatly beyond fair value. If these charters granted exclusive rights
to build roads between certain points, that might be considered a
ftE2-T7|
- S-L Si
2
grunt of great value, but whatever may have been the provisions in
the original charters, they have been so amended and modified, that
the State now claims and exercises the right to grant charters to
parallel or competing roads, and the very Committee which reported
this Rill has reported in favor of granting a charter to a new Com¬
pany which proposes to build a line parallel to one already in exist¬
ence. So that it now seems to he the fixed policy of the State to
grant to any person who asks for it a charter to build a road any
where it may please him to go.
Such being the case, it cannot be contended that the State has
granted any great boon, or has been very generous to the Companies.
Favors that are so lightly bestowed, that any man who asks for them
will receive them, cannot be of such value that the bestowal imposes
upon the recipient any very heavy debt of gratitude.
The State has granted to the corporations only the right of exist*
ence, and the right to hold whatever they may buy and pay for. This
is the right of all natural persons.
As an inducement for persons to combine, and form corporations to
build these Railroads and develop the country, the State has granted
to them certain franchises and rights, chief among which is the right
to charge and receive certain compensation for services performed.
This again is only one of those rights which all natural persons en¬
joyed.
A proper apprehension of these simple facts disposes of the preten¬
sion which is put forward in many quarters, that the State has con¬
ferred some great benefits upon the Companies, and therefore has the
right to exact certain compliances in return for the benefits conferred.
I am not going to deny the right of the State to impose some
measure of restraint upon the corporations, but that rests upon other
and different principles which will be discussed hereafter. All that
I wish to impress upon the House on this point now is, that the mere
grant of corporate existence imposes and creates no other or further
obligation upon the part of the Railroad Companies than does such
grant to manufacturing companies or charitable organizations ; that
they are not the beneficiaries of the State in the sense in which it
has lately become the habit of considering them ; that they have
never received its bounty, and owe no duty which has not been abun¬
dantly discharged by the increased facilities afforded by them to the
public, in providing means for intercourse and commerce greatly
beyond what existed previous to their organization.
It is well to keep this in mind, for there has grown up a feeling lately
which finds frequent expression, that as these corporations are the
creatures of the State, therefore the State has the right to deal with
3
them as it will. They are creatures only in the sense that all other
corporations are creatures, and as such the State has no other claim
or right to interfere with or control their management than it has to
control the management of a corporation which manufactures shoes
or cotton goods.
The ground upon which the State can base its claim to supervi¬
sion over their management is that they are common carriers, not
because they are corporations.
This principle is stated by the Supreme Court of the United States
in substance, as follows :
" When one devotes his property to a use in which the public has
an interest, he in effect grants to the public ah interest in that use.
"The property becomes clothed with a public use, and in countries
where the common law prevails, it has been customary from time im¬
memorial for the Legislature to declare what shall be reasonable com¬
pensation under such circumstances."
This doctrine rests upon that principle, and is not based upon any
right to control merely because of the granting of a charter. It is
important to bear this in mind. It concedes the right of the Legis¬
lature to declare what are reasonable rates, and to exercise a measure of
supervision over the Railroad Companies. This may be considered
for the present, at least, as the settled law, and it remains for us to
consider how far this right on the part of the State is affected by the
charters of the Railroad Companies which, certainty until repealed
or modified, constitute a contract between the State and the Com¬
panies.
Nearly all of the Companies have the right undjer their charters to
receive certain rates which are fixed by law. This right or privilege
of running a Road and taking fare and freight is its franchise ; it is
property which the State cannot take even for public use without
compensation.
See Wilmington R. R. Co., vs. Reid, 13 AVall., 268.
The same Court which asserted the right of the State in respect to
controlling rates, etc., uses the following language in Chicago, &c., R.
R. Co., vs. Iowa, 91 U. S., p. 161. "Railroad Companies are subject to
legislative control as to their rates of fare and freight, unless pro¬
tected by their charters. * * * Whatever is granted is secured
subj ect only to the limitations and reservations in the charter or in
the laws, or constitutions which govern it. * * * It was within
the powers of the Company to call upon the Legislature to fix per¬
manently this limit, and make it part of the charter. * * * *
"If that had been done, the charter might have presented a contract
against future legislative interference."
4
It is not pertinent to the question now immediately under consid¬
eration to discuss how far the State is inhibited by its contracts with
the several Companies from passing laws violating the obligation of
such contracts. It is sufficient to say that the reserved right to
alter or modify charters does not apply when the legislative action
will impair a contract made with the State itself, and that when a
State enters into a contract with an individual, it deposes as to the
matter of the contract its constitutional authority, and exchanges the
character of legislator for that of moral agent, with the same rights
and obligations as an individual. It is impossible to reconcile the two
ideas of a promise which obliges with a power to make a law which
can vary the effect of it. A reservation of power to violate or alter a
contract would be repugnant to the contract itself, and void.
This reasoning, which is supported by the highest authority, would,
it seems to me, be entitled to great consideration, if the proposition
before the House looked towards such alteration or amendments of
the charters as would affect the rates of fare or freight—but this Bill
goes much farther than that. It proposes to create a Commission of
three persons, to be appointed by the Governor, who are required to
make for each Railroad Company a schedule of rates of charges for
the transportation of freight and passengers, and such rules and reg¬
ulations as they may think just, with power to revise and change
such schedules as often as circumstances may require, and in all suits
againt such Companies on account of charges for freight or unjust
discrimination, such schedules are declared to be sufficient evidence
that the rates therein fixed are just and reasonable rates, and any
violation of these rules is made a penal offence subjecting any person
guilty thereof to heavy penalties.
Human ingenuity would be exhausted in devising a plan for giving
more absolute power over Railroad Companies to men who are to be
chosen from a class presumably hostile to the Companies, for the
Commissioners are required to take an oath that they do not hold
any stock or bonds in any Railroad Company, nor are interested in
any way or manner in any Railroad.
Thus it is proposed to sweep away at a breath all the chartered
rights of the Companies and to place them absolutely in the power of
the Commissioners.
The first and most obvious objection to the Bill is that it is in direct
violation of the twenty-sixth Section of the first Article of the Con¬
stitution, which is as follows : "In the government of this Common¬
wealth the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers of the govern¬
ment shall be forever separate and distinct from each other, and no
5
person or persons exercising the functions of one of said departments
shall assume or discharge the duties of any other."
Heretofore, the Legislature has fixed in the charters of the several
Companies the rates of freight and passenger charges. These char¬
ters are not repealed. Any change in these rates, therefore, is clearly
an exercise of legislative power. These Companies under their re¬
spective charters are allowed to make their own rules and regulations.
This Bill confers such power upon the Commissioners. Clearly the
power to make the law as to rates and rules and regulations is legislative
power. Judicial power is also conferred upon the Commissioners in
this that they pass judicially upon the fact whether the rates are just
and reasonable, and their judgment is final. They also pass judicially
upon any contracts and agreements between the Railroad Companies
and may declare the same illegal and void. Executive power is con¬
ferred upon the Commissioners in that they are required to enforce
obedience by the Railroad Companies of all the rate-laws, rule-laws,
and regulation-laws made by them.
Hot only does this Bill combine executive, judicial, and legislative
functions in the same persons in violation of the Constitution, but it
avoids a duty specifically enjoined in the fifth Section of the twelfth
Article, which provides for "general laws," to "regulate the public use
of all franchises which have heretofore been or hereafter may be
created or granted by or under the authority of this State and shall
limit all tolls, imposts, and other charges under such laws."
Will it be pretended that the power conferred upon the Commis¬
sioners to make freight tariffs for every Railroad Company, and
change the same at will is a "general law" within the meaning of this
O O O
Section ?
Again, the Constitution provides, Article I., Section 11, "The right
/ of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." This Bill nullifies this pro¬
vision, in this, that it makes the published schedule of rates "sufficient
evidence" that these rates are "just and reasonable." In a prosecution
for violating these rules, a person charged would not have the right
to impeach the justness and reasonableness of such rules, or to meet
the witnesses, upon whose testimony they are based, face to face; but
the mere production of the printed schedule is declared to be "suffi¬
cient evidence" that he is guilty of extortionate charges or unjust dis¬
crimination. Of what value is the trial by jury, if the jury is not
allowed to determine the fact ? Under the practice which has pre¬
vailed for centuries wherever our language is spoken, the jury deter¬
mines upon the sufficiency of the evidence. This Bill abrogates the
law.
Again, in Section 14 of the same Article of the Constitution, it is
6
provided that "no person shall be * * * despoiled or dispossessed
of his property, immunities, or privileges, * * * or deprived of
his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers or the law
of the land."
The "law of the land" is not the capricious will of any man or any
set of men, nor is it any arbitrary action even of the Legislature itself.
It is law in regular course of administration through Courts of justice.
This Bill is also in violation of the Constitution of the United States,
which provides, XI\rth Amendment: "Nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," etc.
Mr. Justice Field has decided in a recent case in California that a
Bailroad corporation is a "person" within the meaning of this Section,
and it can scarcely be denied that the franchise to operate a Railroad
and to charge such rates as will enable it to earn an income is pro¬
perty. The arbitrary fixing of rates by a Commission, from whose
decision there is no appeal, is not due process of law.
The points which have been thus briefly presented, if not conclu¬
sive of the question, seem to me to be at least sufficient to awaken a
reasonable doubt in the mind of any candid man, as the constitution¬
ality of the proposed legislation, and to cause him to pause and consider
gravely whether it is so far wise and necessary that we should take this
step, even at the risk of its strict legality. For myself, I must frank¬
ly say that I am so constituted by nature and confirmed by habit,
that I am indisposed to venture upon untrodden paths. It would be
something of an argument against any proposed legislation, that it
was unprecedented in the history of our State and established princi¬
ples repugnant to our Constitution, and contrary to the traditions
and habits of our people. I do not mean to say that I would oppose
everything that is new; for not to change with time and circumstances
is to stagnate, and I would not wish to set my face against every re¬
form. Mere innovation, however, is not reform. Where legislation
is likely to affect seriously the interests of others, I would proceed
with caution and circumspection. I have not that unbounded confi¬
dence in my own judgment that I wTould seize upon a new and un¬
tried system, without mature deliberation.
I think that it will not be denied that this Bill is not the result of
mature deliberation. There has been no patient investigation of the de¬
fects of the present system of Railroad management. There are com¬
plaints of unjust discrimination and of unreasonable charges. These
complaints have appeared in the newspapers and in other publications,
but tbere has been no inquiry by the General Assembly into the facts,
and no opportunity of ascertaining whether the facts are true, and of
devising the proper remedy, and no opportunity given to the Railroad
7
Companies to explain their action. AVe all believe, in a general way,
that there are evils which can be remedied, but instead of seeking to
devise a remedy for those evils which investigation may disclose, we
are asked to take this short cut out of the difficulties which environ
us, and to devolve our functions as legislators upon a Commission.
This, of course, is the easy way out, but it does not seem to me to be the
right way. The right way will be slow; it involves time and thought
and labor; it is beset with difficulties. AYe seize upon the other be¬
cause we see no difficulties in what has never been tried.
No man is bound to accept the office of a legislator, but having ac¬
cepted it, he cannot rightfully avoid the obligation it imposes, or
evade the constitutional responsibilities incident to it. Our constit¬
uents are entitled to industry and fidelity in the discharge of our du¬
ties. They are entitled also to our judgment in all that relates to
the making of laws. AYe are the agents selected by the people to
make laws for them, and we cannot delegate this power to others.
There is no higher trust, based upon a broader confidence, than the
possession of legislative power. AYe are selected from all classes of
the people and from every section, because we are presumed to know
the needs of the State, and to have the wisdom and the honesty to
make laws for its governance. AYe are, by the Constitution, the ex¬
clusive depositaries of these powers. If the rates charged by the
Railroad Companies are excessive, we alone have the power to regu¬
late them, and cannot transfer this delegated authority.
But assuming that we have the power, is the proposed plan wise
and safe? Has it the sanction and authority of men who have stud¬
ied these questions, and who, from their experience and detailed
knowledge of the subject, command our confidence. There is no lack
of eloquence among the supporters of this Bill, but that does not im¬
ply wisdom. I wish to make no personal allusions, but I have the
right to ask something more than mere eloquent denunciation of
present evils. Those who would subvert ancient usages must give
reasons. AYe wish no untried speculations and loose theories. AYhen
gentlemen ask us to accept their recommendations, and to take a new
departure of such a radical nature, I wish to know who is leading me,
and I must confess in all frankness that I am not satisfied that
they have any such profound knowledge of this intricate and difficult
subject, that I accept their opinions as authority. I wholly respect
their good intentions, but I distrust their zeal. The opinion of one
practical man who had investigated the practical workings of this
system, and who has had a practical knowledge of the management
of large corporate organizations would have weight with me greater
than the eloquence of all the orators in this House.
8
But we are told that the system has worked well in Georgia. It
would not follow that it was a good system for us, even if that were so.
The conditions here are different from those which exist in Georgia,
O '
and what might be good for them would not necessarily be good for us.
But I deny that it has worked well in Georgia. I have before me
the affidavit of the manager of one of the Bailroads in that State, a
gentleman of the highest character and well known to me personally,
which shows that by the schedule of rates enforced upon his Com¬
pany by the Commission, there would be a deficit of over S80,000 in
the amount necessary to pay the interest on the bonded debt of his
Company.
I have beard that, since the first year, the Commissioners have not
interfered very much with the Roads there, and that they get on
very well, but the prosperity of the Companies there is in spite of
the Commission, and not because of it.
The truth is, that so much depends upon the character of the men
composing the Commission, that no argument of any weight, to my
mind, can be drawn from the experience of Georgia, whether favor¬
able or unfavorable. We must judge of the probable, or rather pos¬
sible, results of this plan, by considerations of the plan itself, and
by our knowledge of human nature and of the ordinary motives
and springs of human action.
We are asked to confer upon three men absolute power over all the
Railroads in this State. They are to make rates, rules, and regula¬
tions by which all the Railroads are to be bound; and the justness
and reasonableness of their rates, &c., are not to be reviewed or con¬
trolled by any earthly tribunal. More unbounded, undefined, and
indefinable power was never given to men.
The power of your Judges is circumscribed by laws, immemorial
usages, positive rules, and practices.
The power of your Legislature is limited by a written Constitution ;
by those innumerable checks and counterpoises which are of the very
essence of democratic and representative government.
The powers of all your officers of State, from the Governor down,
are defined and regulated by law.
These Commissioners alone, of all the Departments of the Govern¬
ment, are invested with arbitrary power. Their own capricious, ever-
changing will is the only law for their government.
Restrained by no fundamental law, no fixed Constitution, no regu¬
lated standard, you make them masters of millions of property, with
no limitations save the uncertain measure of their own passions.
Compared with these, the power of your Judges, great and awful.
9
as it seems and is, is light as the down which floats upon the summer
breeze.
I will never consent to confer such power upon any human beings—
to subject property, entitled to the protection of the laws, to the
capricious and arbitrary will of any man or men. The power to
make, construe, and execute the law which this Bill confers upon the
Commissioners, is the very definition of tyranny and despotism.
Arbitrary power no human being should have, no Legislature can
grant. It is a thing so hateful and monstrous, that it is impossible.
Said Edmund Burke, in his great speech on the impeachment of
Warren Hastings : "He have arbitrary power! My Lords, the East
India Company have not arbitrary power to give him; the King has
no arbitrary power to give him ; your Lordships have not; nor the
Commons ; nor the whole Legislature. We have no arbitrary power
to give, because arbitrary power is a thing which neither any man
can hold, nor any man can give. * * * If they were mad enough
to make an express contract that should release this magistrate from
his duty, and should declare their lives, their liberties and properties
dependent upon, not rules and laws, but his own capricious will, that
covenant would be void."
It will not be denied that the power given to these Commissioners
is such that an ignorant or capricious exercise of it would be ruinous
to the Companies. But the partisans of the measure say that this is
not probable. It is a sufficient objection to the plan, if such a thing
is possible. But let us consider probabilities.
The management of Railways, the arrangement of freight tariffs,
the protection of the varied and diverse interests of the patrons of a
Road, the adapting of the same to the ever changing currents of com¬
merce, has become a business—I may say a science—so complex and
difficult, that it taxes the ability of men of the greatest practical
knowledge, who devote their lives to it. There is such a multiplicity
of details, the machinery is so complicated, that a man of the best
intentions, without that special technical knowledge which comes
from experience only, would be apt, nay, would be certain, to fail, by
attempting to impose tariffs and rules which, abstractly, would seem
most just and equitable.
Let us consider what manner of men we are likely to get under
this Bill.
In the first place, no man who has any interest in any Railroad is
eligible to appointment. This of necessity excludes every man of
any ability in Railroad management; for who is there of that class
that has not, by industry and economy, made some savings in a life¬
time of labor, which naturally has been invested in bonds or stock of
10
the Railroad with which he is connected. If there are any such, that
very circumstance demonstrates a lack of essential qualities. A man
who spends all his earnings cannot be a good man of business, what¬
ever his talents may be. Besides, a Railroad man who is qualified for
such a position, could not be induced to accept it for the $2,100 per
year salary of the office. There is too great a demand for such men
in positions which pay more money, and promise greater security in
tenure, and better opportunities for advancement. Undoubtedly there
will be plenty of candidates for these positions—plenty of briefless
lawyers, and bankrupt merchants, and men who, in the various pursuits
of life, have fallen by the wayside. There are many excellent men
who believe themselves capable, and who would conscientiously en¬
deavor to discharge the duty, and many thirsty patriots eager to
slake their thirst at the public fountain. Of all the number of those
who have presented themselves, I would ask any member of this
House if he knows one that any large Railroad corporation would
choose as manager, or superintendent, or general freight agent ? I
have heard of at least twenty-five candidates, and I am sure, that in
the whole number, there is not one capable of filling either of the
positions named.
From the very necessity of the case, can it be expected that men
chosen from the class which has no interest in Railroads should be
regardful of their interests ? Is not the spirit which creates the
office a spirit of hostility ? Does not the office have its birth in that
hostility? It would be against human nature that such men should
be free from bias and prejudice. The love of power is natural to
man ; it is never cloyed by possession ; it is insatiable; it seeks to
perpetuate itself. These Commissioners, if they are human, must
conciliate the influences which brought them into being. They must
satisfy the people, for interest and gratitude alike bind them to do so.
This, you may say, is not duty. It is more than that; it is human
nature. The fountain can no more rise above its source, than can
men appointed under these circumstances rise above the influences
that created them.
But gentlemen say, We will try the experiment for a year, and if
it does not work well, we can repeal the Act. In other words, we
will bind these Railroads hand and foot, place them completely at
the mercy of the Commissioners; and if, at the end of the year, the
Companies are ruined, we will repeal the law. Is not this subversive
of every idea and principle of justice ? Men's rights of property are
taken out of the protection of just and equal laws, and made subject
to the arbitrary discretion of private—nay, interested; nay, irritated—
individuals; and we are told gravely that we will repeal the law after
4
11
the damage is done. Why, such legislation lays the axe at the root
of property, and consequently of all prosperity. It destroys all the
balances and checks and counterpoises which preserve society and
property, and fix and steady it. It is more like the freaks and gam¬
bols of boyish malice than the deliberate action of law-loving, God¬
fearing men.
The very object and end of government is to check and control the
operations of the arbitrary and capricious will of men.
This kind of legislation is new to South Carolina. While we have
not kept pace with some of our sister States in the march of material
prosperity, it has always been our boast that vce preserved the old
landmarks, that we accepted no new dogmas, that we stood by the old
faith and the traditions of our fathers.
Yet, moved by a momentary sense of inconvenience, and following
the bent of present inclination, neglecting all precautions and pro¬
visions, in apish imitation of the fashion of our neighbors, we turn
our backs upon the ancient conservatism that marks our annals.
This Bill is not the out-growth of our necessities; it does not pre¬
tend to furnish any specific remedy for evils found to exist. I am no
stranger to the faults and defects and abuses abounding in the Bail-
road system of South Carolina, and am as anxious as any man to
reform those abuses ; but to destroy is not to reform; to substitute a
harsh, crude, untried system is not reform; to pull down the whole
fabric and erect thereon a theoretic experiment is not reform.
No man can answer for the salutary effect of this projected system;
it is a rash and hazardous adventure. The people of Charleston make
specific allegations against the Bailroad management of the Bichmond
and Danville system. They ask for relief against specified injustice.
What is our answer? We give them a Commission which, for aught
we know, may perpetuate and increase and intensify the very evils
complained of.
We know our Judges. We know the chief law officer of the State.
Cannot we trust them to see to the execution of any Statutes that we
may pass for the correction of any injustice complained of? Have
we not intelligence enough to devise remedies for evils ? Is there a
necessity for calling to our assistance this new-fangled contrivance ?
If we make mistakes, the Courts will correct them. If this Commis¬
sion errs, the evil is irremediable.
Let the gentlemen who propose this scheme give us reasons. It is
not enough to tell us that Georgia has a Commission. We are not
legislating for Georgia. We are surely not so destitute of men and
minds that we must slavishly imitate our neighbors.
Georgia did not rashly adopt her system. She first amended her
12
Constitution. . The matter was discussed for years. Her system may
be good or bad (I believe it is bad); but that does not concern us; it
is the outgrowth, presumably, of her own peculiar necessities, and
adapted to her own peculiar conditions. I am not averse to learning
something from our neighbors, or even from our enemies, and am
ready enough to follow their example whenever it is best, but we
have had enough of these attempts to change our fundamental law
by apish following of other States. We took at one gulp the Code of
Procedure from New York, and for twelve years we have been amend¬
ing it to suit our peculiar necessities and the genius of our people.
We took from Vermont her township system, and soon learned that
it didn't suit us; and so we have gone on from year to year enacting
one year and repealing the next. Last year we had a High Joint
Railroad Committee sitting during the recess. Every State in the
Union, from Maine to California, I believe, was assessed for a contri¬
bution, and the product of all this labor is embodied in the General
Railroad l!aw. Now, this year, before slow-going people have had
time to digest what has been enacted, the restless impatient energy
of our law-givers presses another Bill upon us. Last year they aped
Iowa; this year they present us with a hotch-potch composed of
about equal parts of Georgia and Illinois, with a suspicion of Cali¬
fornia, flavored with Denis Kearney and the Sand Lots.
Now, there has not been time to try fairly the law of last year,
which, to my mind, contains within itself the power to cure most of
the evils which can be cured by legislation.
Without waiting to see whether we can work out of our difficulties
under the present law by a more active and energetic administration
of it, we are asked, in substance, to take the administration of the
Railroads into the hands of the State. This devolves upon us the
moral responsibility of managing them honestly, intelligently, and
successfully ; and if our agents, our Commissioners, should make mis¬
takes, and the Railroad Companies should suffer, and their earnings
should fall below what is necessary to pay the expenses and fixed
charges, justice would require that the State should make good the
deficit. Are gentlemen prepared for that?
I take it that the true rule for us to adopt, when any new and radi¬
cal legislation is asked, is to inquire—
1st. Is the abuse complained of a great abuse, is it habitual or acci¬
dental, and is it utterly incurable under the present laws ? 2d. Is the
proposed legislation well adapted to remedy the specific abuse and
free from any objection ?
This should be made clear as the sun.
• No Legislature can remedy all abuses. There are dbuntless evils
in this life that are irremediable.
13
Let us, therefore, be patient and go on step by step, not seeking at
a bound to attain a perfect system, but working slowly and by patient
processes, which will be healing and mediatorial, not harsh and crude.
The good or ill success of the first step will light us on to the second,
and the system wfill grow up gradually; conflicting interests will be
reconciled, and anomalies removed.
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. They tarnish the glory
and eclipse the fame of the State. They shake public security and
menace private enjoyment. The ill effects of such legislation as this
will not be confined to the Railroads themselves. That will be the
least of their ill effects. The property interests that may be destroyed
may be replaced by industry and time, other and wiser legislators
may remove from the Statute this monument of harsh and hasty and
vengeful legislation, but what can wipe away the stain of blighted
faith ?
Gentlemen within these walls have demanded this legislation, be¬
cause they say that our Railroads are now owned by strangers, and
the State must control them in order to protect her citizens. That
they are owned by strangers who have no representation in this
House, and can raise no voice in their own behalf, is all the more rea¬
son why we should observe the most guarded circumspection in deal¬
ing with their rights. They have invested their money here upon
our invitation. Year after year we have been calling aloud for foreign
capital. We have inveigled them with fair promises within out¬
doors. They have trusted to the ancient honor of South Carolina,
and their interests here are under the sanction of our public faith.
If they are drawing huge dividends on their investment, if they
are extorting the hard earnings of the people by excessivecharges,no
man would more readily join in all measures to restrain them, but as
a matter of fact, it is notorious that the Roads are barely earning the
interest on their bonded debt, and some of them are on the verge of
bankruptcy. It is a notorious fact, also, that for the last two or three
years there has been a steady improvement in the physical condition
of all the Roads in the State, that large sums of money have been ex¬
pended on them, that never before have the people had equal facili¬
ties for safe and speedy travel and transportation. When we see
these apparently earnest endeavors towards improvement, it seems
to me that we had better strive to heighten the excellencies, improve
the capacities, and correct the faults of the present system rather
than adopt in haste and without due inquiry a new and untried sys¬
tem which has within itself infinite capabilities of evil.
It is my deliberate judgment (and I think that my acquaintance
and opportunities entitle me to express an opinion on the subject)
14
that the passage of this Bill wiil blight and blast every Bailroad en¬
terprise in South Carolina; that it will destroy confidence in the se¬
curity of all property, and in the justice and moderation of our opin¬
ions. I believe, too, that it will fail to accomplish the objects sought,
that it will injure the credit of all the Bailroad Companies in the
State, that bridled by hard laws it will be impossible for them to
prosper, and that all the people of this State will suffer from it.
All the complaints that I have heard relate to the Boads controlled
by the Bichmond & Danville system. I have no sympathy with that
system of Boads. On the contrary, if this were a fitting time and
place, I would express the scorn which most honest men feel for some
of those practices in the stock market in New York by the manipu¬
lators of its stock, and which has brought discredit to the Company
itself, and injury to other Southern enterprises. But for the errors,
faults, or offences of one, this Bill visits all with penalty and coercion.
It takes away not only the rights and privileges that have been
abused, but all the rights and all the privileges together which some of
these Companies have enjoyed for fifty years.
Mr. Speaker, w-hen so many reasons that ought to have weight so
readily occur, I feel somewhat ashamed to address to honest men
another which appeals to the sordid and selfish side of human na¬
ture ; but this Bill is so monstrous in my eyes, that I can omit no
consideration which may tend to defeat it.
We have had a sad experience here in South Carolina of the powder
of the United States government. We have tasted the bitter conse¬
quences of its interference with our local government. We know
the power of its army of office holders. God forbid that anything
that we do should increase that power or furnish occasion for its ex¬
ercise, but it seems to me almost certain, that if the States continue
the creation of these tribunals which harass and injure the Bailroad
interests, those interests will unite in an appeal to the Congress of
the United States for protection. I hope that that time may be far
off; but this I feel, that legislation like this will hasten its coming,
and woe to the States wThen it comes, woe to the government itself,
when to its already immense patronage is added the control of billions
of Bailroad property.
I have at the risk of some misconstruction endeavored to present
to the House some of the arguments and reasons why this Bill should
not become a law. If I have omitted any which wTould be available,
I would greatly deplore it, for I believe upon my conscience, that no
measure more fruitful of evil has ever been proposed in South Caro¬
lina. I have been compelled to differ with gentlemen who represent
the same constituency, and who, perhaps, more nearly represent than
I do the views of that constituency on this subject.
I think that that legislator has only half learned his duty, if he
has only learned to fight for the cause of his people when they are in
the right, and when his judgment accords with theirs; it is equally
his duty to serve them according to his conscience, and in spite of
themselves, do that which he believes to be for their interests, when
he thinks them ill advised. It is above all things due to them and to
his own self-respect that he resist a thoughtless clamor springing
from honest but impatient spirits who think that all the ills of life
can be cured by legislation. I decline to enter upon a voyage on un¬
known seas without a compass.
Charleston complains of unjust discriminations. I am in thorough
sympathy with the complaints and believe them to be well founded.
I would so amend the law as to correct the evil so far as it can be
corrected. I would increase the efficiency of the Commission so as
to secure the enforcement of the law. I would direct the Attorney
General to bring to bear the whole power of the State. I would trust
to the law and to the Courts to give us justice. It is my belief that
there is not a single act of injustice which cannot be prevented or
punished under the law as it now stands, or as it will be as amended
by this Bill, and that an efficient, active, intelligent Commission,
under the advice of the present able and efficient Attorney General,
can correct and prevent every evil that it is possible to prevent
by law.
I am loth to add to the burdens of this impoverished people by
increasing the number and pay of public officers. As a measure of
party policy, I doubt the expediency of so doing. One of the gravest
charges in the indictment against the late Republican administration
was that it created too many offices. Says the platform of the Demo¬
cratic Constitution of August, 1876: We arraign it (the Bepubliean
party) because uit has created a multiplicity of unnecessary and use¬
less offices, complicated in their system and unnecessarily expensive."
Have we reformed in that particular? Have we not, on the con¬
trary, added to the number of officers? Have we not added an Agri¬
cultural Commissioner, a Fish Commissioner, a Phosphate Commis¬
sioner, an Emigration Commissioner, a Railroad Commissioner?—and
now we propose to make three Railroad Commissioners.
I would be willing to create a Commission of three persons, to be
selected by the Governor, whose duty it should be to hear and exam¬
ine every complaint of evils and abuses made against the Railroads
during the coming year, to commence prosecutions through the At-
16
torney General whenever necessary, and to report to the General
Assembly at its next session what evils are found to exist, and to be
beyond the reach of remedy by ordinary judicial proceedings.
I think that if the House had adopted the resolutions which I had
the honor to introduce at the beginning of this session, this informa-
CD O 7
tion would have been obtained at less expense and more speedily.
I will go as far as any man on this floor to correct abuses in Rail-
road management, but I am not willing to trample upon the Consti¬
tution and the law.
I feel that I speak to this House under some disadvantage; that I
am looked upon in some quarters as an advocate of Railroad interests
on this floor; and the inference is expected that my views are colored
by that advocacy. I think that those who know me will believe that
I owe no obligation to any Railroad Company as great as that which
I owe to the people who sent me here; and that if the day should
come when there seemed to be a possibility of some conflict of interest,
it would be instantly solved, and in the right way. It is true that
some of those who are the owners of Railroad property in South
Carolina are my personal friends—that I have cooperated with them
in the last few years in reorganising some of these Roads, and in my
humble way, according to my means, have united with them in the
work of restoration and improvement—an improvement in which the
whole State has shared the benefit. My relations with those gentle¬
men have continued to be close and intimate, but none know better
than they that in my character here as a representative of the people
I am as far above the reach of any improper influence on their part
as they are above the attempt to exert such.
I do not owe my place here to them, and in no sense am I their
representative. I have not sought their advice or opinion as to this
measure, or any other measure, of public policy, and they have not
offered any. I have asked the opinion of Col. Peck, the General
Manager of the South Carolina Railway Company, as to the probable
effect of this Bill upon the city of Chaiieston. I asked it, because he
is an expert in Railway business ; a man of uncommon powers, who
is singularly free from prejudices; and above all the men that I know,
the man whose opinion on this subject I would most value. He is de¬
cidedly of the opinion that this Bill would work injury to Charleston.
His opinion is of more weight with me because the Road of which he
is Manager has interests identical with Charleston, and suffers from
the same causes that Charleston does.
I have thought that it was proper to make this personal statement
because I am new to this House and unknown to many of its members.
17
I cannot feel sure that any opinions or arguments which I have pre¬
sented are entitled to any consideration from you, but I do feel sure
that they are honest opinions unbiassed by any tinge of personal
interest.
In voting against this Bill, I feel that I am performing a patriotic
service to the State, a service inspired by a motive fully as pure as
that which led me in the first dawn of manhood to take up arms and
shed my blood in her defence.
4