RAILWAY LEGISLATION 21$ 



The first serious consideration of the regulation of railroad 

 rates by Congress was in the second session of the Fortieth 

 Congress (1867-68). At this session the Senate committee 

 on commerce was instructed to consider the expediency of estab- 

 lishing maximum rates on interstate roads, 1 and the House 

 committees on judiciary and on roads and canals were instructed 

 to inquire into the constitutional power of Congress to regulate 

 rates on railroads engaged in interstate commerce. 2 The first 

 two of these committees failed to report, but on June 9, 1868, 

 the House committee on roads and canals submitted the first 

 report which was ever made to Congress on the subject of rail- 

 road regulation. 3 In this report, the committee declared not 

 only that Congress had the power to regulate interstate traffic 

 on railroads, but that such regulation would be expedient. 

 The appointment of a select committee to consider the subject 

 and prepare a bill was suggested in the report, but the House 

 took no further action. 4 Resolutions instructing committees 

 to investigate the subject were also adopted by both houses 

 of the Forty-first Congress, 5 and the first bills looking toward 

 a general system of federal control of railroad rates were intro- 

 duced into the House of Representatives in the second session 

 of the Forty-second Congress. 6 One of these, introduced by 

 Mr. McCrary of Iowa, was entitled, a bill " to require uniform 

 charges for transporting freight and passengers by railroad 

 companies and other common carriers, and to prevent unjust 



1 Senate Journal, 40 Congress, 2 session, 76; Congressional Globe, 343. 



2 House Journal, 456, 640, Congressional Globe, 1632, 2331. It is interesting 

 to note that the Senate resolution indicates no doubt as to the constitutional power 

 of Congress to regulate interstate rates on railroads, but proposes to inquire into 

 the expediency of such legislation, while the House resolutions seem to take it for 

 granted that such regulation would be desirable, if constitutional, and call for an 

 investigation of the power of Congress in the premises. 



3 House Journal, 828; Congressional Globe, 2977; House Reports, ii. no. 57; 

 James, The Agitation for Federal Regulation, 33. 



4 The report was accompanied by a twelve page minority report signed by Kerr 

 of Indiana and Barnum of Connecticut, which took issue with the majority report 

 on both the constitutionality and expediency of the proposed legislation. 



6 House Journal, 41 Congress, 2 session, 84; Senate Journal, 3 session, 569, 



1943- 



6 House Journal, 197, 561, 654. 



