Legislature Debates Railroad Control
A fiery session at Olympia pits regional interests against railroad power as lawmakers debate how to regulate freight rates.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The house gave abundant evidence today of its determination to do its part in the enactment of railroad legislation. There was practically no opposition to the three measures affecting railroad companies that were passed. Conflicts arose over amendments, but the expressed reason for both the desire to amend and the wish to defeat amendments, was a solicitude for the constitutionality of the pending measure. During the debate on the railroad commission bill, introduced by Hoole of Clallam, Mentrer declared that the commission system had proved a failure in other states. He wanted the legislature to fix passenger and freight rates itself, and not leave the tariffs to be adjusted by three men, who could be bribed, cajoled and wheedled by the railroad companies. Hoole replied that his own county, which had no railroad and which was dependent upon steamboats entirely, was compelled to pay $5 a ton for freight to San Francisco when that same freight was shipped right past his county to Seattle for $1.
“He wanted the legislature to fix passenger and freight rates itself, and not leave the tariffs to be adjusted by three men, who could be bribed, cajoled and wheedled by the railroad companies.”
The struggle between regional freight costs and corporate consolidation in the 1890s echoes contemporary concerns about regional equity and the power of large logistics and utility monopolies in the Pacific Northwest.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.