. .
" n-p lfw
Ul
M
ft
THE HESPERIAN.
Vol. XXYIII.
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, MAY 13, 1899.
No. 31.
&
MISSOURI nRFPATR NPRRA.QKA
The Inter-State Debate Results In a Victory to Missouri.
Judges Vote is Two to One.
RMs The second annual forensic contest between the universities
m of Nebraska and Missouri was decided in favor of the latter,
jv last night. The decision was announced by W. J. Bryan and
fljL- was that the judges wore unanimously of the opinion that Ne-
iTtf braska was better in manner of presentation but Missouri
should have the decision on argument by a vote of 2 to 1.
Dean J. W. Green of the Kansas Law School at Lawrence
.w Kansas, was the judge who stood up for Nebraska. The
otuur two juages wore w. J. uryan ana congressman uocnran
of St. Joseph.
The debate was hold in the high school auditorium and was
listonod to by. a small but enthusiastic crowd. Governor
Poynter presided. The question for the debate was "Resolved,
tho the combinations of railroads to determine rates are not
desirable and should boyprohibited by law." Missouri affirmed,
Nebraska denied. "
W. 0. Barnhardt opened tho debate for Missouri. Two rem
edies for present evils. (1) Government Control. (2) Combi
nation. An agreement among tho railroads should bo suc
cessful. All railroads should enter tho combination, but they
do not. Strong lines will have to give way to some extent to
weaker ones. Jealousy of railroads makes such combinations
impracticable in operation. Secrecy of agreements makes
them ineffective. Tho combination depends upon tho good
will of each individual road. Lack of good faith makes com
binations undesirable. Evils before resulting are not done
away with by combinations. Combinations are not desirable
because all roads will not enter the combination, and conse
quently evils of discrimination will continue to exist. Tho
worst railroad wars of history have been during existing com
binations. After tho inter-state commerce act a greater stabil
ity of rates was established, according to tho government re
port.
G. D, Talbot opened tho debate for tho negative. The
only thing to bo considered in this question is tho interest of
tho people. Under tho present system ratos are unstable, honco
doing injustice to business interests. Combination will do
way with present evils. Railroads only affect the financial
interests of tho people. Railroads may charge too much abso
lutely and too much relatively. In either case tho railroads
would defeat their own interests, which is to make money.
h
They will not discriminate, because they would lose by such a
procedure. Competition and discrimination have built up the
Standard Oil company and anthracite coal trust. This would
be impossible under combination. Competition is not a factor in
railroads. Combination will establish uniform rates, and rail
roads can still compete for business by better facilities. Only
10 per cent, of railroad business subject to competition.
F. C. Cleary, the second speaker for Missouri, said: Com
binations would inflict greater injurieb than tho present system.
If one railroad gives better facilities under the combination,
tho combination will bo broken up by the jealousy of other
roads. Under combination traffic will bo diverted to circuit
ous routes, even to steamship lines, thus causing increased
rates to the shipper. Combination virtually means consolida
tion, a thing wo must avoid. The combinations of tho 70's
had the products of the country under their control, and charged
what they desired under the power of combination. Combin
ations raise rates at local points. Competition has resulted in
lower rates than combination. High rates may long continue
to repress production withoufloss to tho railroads. Combina
tion invites construction of new roads.
F. A. Nims, the second speaker for tho negative, said: What
wo want is a just system of uniform and equitable charges.
Railroad evils continue to exist under the inter-state commerce
law. Tho present discriminations are a great check to in
dustry. Tho present system discriminates against 90 per cent,
of shippers, because competition only effects 10 per cent, of
railroad traffic. Combination strikes at tho root of the ovils
now existing by destroying the cause. Tho evils of railroads
now could not exist under combination, because railroad man
agers would watch jealously tho actions of the other roads in
tho combine, and thus enforce the contract. Combinations
have been a success in Germany and England.
W. S. Johnson of Mo., tho third speaker for the affirmative
said: Tho only reason railroads enter combinations, is to raiso
and keep up rates. These combinations would cause tho rail
roads to combine with all means of transportation, thus build
ing up a monopoly which would bo able to do as it pleased with
tho industries of tho nation. Tho inter-state commerce law
has boon very effective, but has been impaired by tho supreme
court decisions. Denies that combinations would tend to en
force tho law. Combinations seriously interfere with commerce
by tho artificial regulations which they mako. Wo cannot e,x
MUmU
