The People vs. the Railroads: Olympia Debates a Rate Cap
While the Capitol fought off adjournment, a bill to cap passenger and freight rates reached the floor of the Washington House — with Populists demanding an up-or-down vote and railroad men asking for more time.
OLYMPIA, Feb. 21.—Special.—The railroad rate bill was brought into the house this morning with majority and minority reports, the former recommending its passage, with numerous amendments. The measure fixes and regulates maximum passenger and freight rates within the state, forbids discrimination by railway companies between persons, firms, companies, corporations and localities, and provides machinery for determining the reasonableness of rates.
Schively, of Whatcom, who dissented from the majority report, rose to a question of privilege and said he wished to explain the minority report. It was made, he said, more for the purpose of creating sufficient delay for a more extended consideration of the bill in committee. Williams, Berge and other members of the committee had been absent on investigations of state institutions and desired more time to look into the merits of the bill. Several meetings had been held during their absence, and he believed it was not fair to refuse them time to consider the matter in committee. "We have been accused," said Mr. Schively, "of desiring filibuster. This is absolutely false, as we are friendly to the bill. We believe a unanimous report can be agreed upon with a few days more. We are not protesting against the bill, but protesting against being forced."
Cline, of Whatcom, Pop., said the people of the state were demanding immediate action on the bill, and he therefore moved as an amendment to take up the majority report of the committee and vote upon it.
Schively moved as an amendment to Cline's amendment that the bill be re-referred to the committee with instructions to report next Tuesday. Albertson, of King, supported Schively's amendment. He did not believe it possible to return a unanimous report, and thought this the most reasonable plan to pursue to arrive at a speedy disposal of the bill.
Baker, Pop., of Pierce, who has been so anxious to get the bill before the house, vigorously opposed Schively's amendment. He said time was being wasted by the committee and that the house was now ready to consider the bill. Goddard, of King, believed, in the interest of the friends of the measure, that it should be recommitted; if not, it would probably be defeated.
Ide, chairman of the committee, hoped the bill would be recommitted. He had received telegrams from representatives of 7,000 employes of the railroads, who desired to be heard in opposition to the bill, and he thought time should be given them. Witt, Pop., said 100,000 people of the state were favoring the other side and demanding immediate action. Moore, of Skagit, said that 10,000 shingle and lumber men would send him dispatches to further consider the bill if necessary.
Schively's amendment was then put to a vote and was lost by a vote of 25 to 44, the Populists opposing it to a man. The majority report recommended passage with amendments fixing maximum rates — 70 cents per ton for distances up to twenty miles, falling to 1 cent per ton for longer hauls, replacing the present maximum of $14.75 under the Anderson bill. The measure was made a special order for Tuesday, and the legislature, refusing to adjourn until then, will meet again Saturday, after observing the Washington's Birthday holiday.
“"One hundred thousand people of the state are favoring the other side and demanding immediate action."”
In 1895 Washington's Legislature fought over whether the state could cap what railroads charged — with organized railroad employees lobbying against the cap and Populists invoking 'the people' on the other side. That same tension over who sets the price of a public utility, and how much corporate lobbying should shape it, plays out today in fights over electricity rates, tolls and franchise agreements.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.