List of customs districts and ports of entry and delivery, July 1, 1904-Continued.

List of customs districts and ports of entry and delivery, July 1, 1904-Continued.

Ports at which merchandise may be entered for transportation to other ports without apppraisement under the act of June 10, 1880.

Ports to which merchandise may be transported without appraisement under the act of

Ports to which merchandise may be transported without appraisement under the act of June 10, 1880-Continued.

List of ports at which bonded warehouses are established.

Bonners Ferry, Mont.

Boothbay, Me.
Boston, Mass.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Buffalo, N. Y.

Cape Vincent, N. Y.
Castine, Me.
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Chicago, Ill.

Cincinnati, Ohio.

Denver, Colo.

Detroit, Mich.

Duluth, Minn.

Durham, N. C.
Eagle Pass, Tex.
Eastport, Me.
El Paso, Tex.
Erie, Pa.
Evansville, Ind.
Everett, Wash.

Fall River, Mass.

Galveston, Tex.

Gloucester, Mass.

Grand Rapids, Mich.
Great Falls, Mont.
Green Bay, Wis.
Hartford, Conn.
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Kansas City, Mo.
Key West, Fla.
Laredo, Tex.
Lincoln, Nebr.
Los Angeles, Cal.
Louisville, Ky.
Minneapolis, Minn.
New Haven, Conn.
New London, Conn.
New Orleans, La.
Newport News, Va
Newark, N. J.
New York, N. Y.
Niagara Falls, N. Y
Nogales, Ariz.
Ogdensburg, N. Y.
Omaha, Nebr.
Oswego, N. Y.
Pensacola, Fla.
Perth Amboy, N. J.
Petersburg, Va.
Philadelphia Pa.

Pittsburg, Pa.
Plattsburg, N. Y.
Port Huron, Mich.
Portland, Me.
Portland, Oreg.
Portsmouth, N. H.
Port Townsend, Wash.
Provincetown, Mass.
Richmond, Va.
Ro hester, N. Y.
St. Joseph, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
St. Michael, Alaska.
St. Paul, Minn.
Saginaw, Mich.
Salem, Mass.
San Diego, Cal.
San Francisco, Cal.
San Juan, P. R.
Savannah, Ga.
Seattle, Wash.
Sioux City, Iowa.
Skagway, Alaska.
Syracuse, N. Y.
Tacoma, Wash.
Tampa, Fla.
Toledo, Ohio.

List of ports where the custom-house premises are used for the storage of imported goods in

bond.

I have no doubt you Senators are entirely familiar with the subject, but the fact is that in almost every State there are several ports by law established. I see none in Senator Newlands's State, although Reno is a point to which I want to call attention hereafter. Take Senator Dolliver's State, for instance, and there are the ports of Sioux City, Dubuque, Des Moines, and Burlington, four or five ports; in Senator Carmack's State there are Memphis, Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Nashville. Or we could start with Maine and go southward and westward, and we should find Portland, Portsmouth; several in the

State of Vermont; Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Fall River; Hart ford, New Haven, and so on down; and all over the country, to the number of 240, there are ports established by law, ports of entry and ports of delivery. From what I could gather from the Treasury officials, the majority of ports of delivery are those where the surveyor has substantially the power of the collector. I wish we had a map here, which would aid us, but of course you are all familiar with the geography of the country, and you can see that from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Lakes to the Gulf this country is dotted over in the several States with ports.

The power of Congress to regulate commerce is expressly limited so that it can not give preference in favor of the ports of one State over those of another State.

Having called your attention to that fact, I want to remind you of the condition of affairs in this country as it exists to-day. Our system of regulating rates or establishing rates, you know, has by the carriers been entirely voluntary. The railroad companies, acted upon by a thousand considerations, have in an infinite number of ways established their rates-under the influence of competition, under the influence of commercial necessities, under the influence of a thousand elements of which we can not begin to calculate or conceive. It has grown up in the community as naturally as a tree has grown up.

Now, Senators, I say to you that you can not depart from the past conditions, you can not depart from the course of events which has hitherto been followed, whereby the people themselves have voluntarily created this state of affairs, and resort to the regulation of these matters by Congress without working in the first place a most profound and revolutionary alteration in the things as they have existed in the past; and, indeed, I do not see how it is possible to do what you assume to do without ruining all the properties of which I have spoken. For let me call your attention to these things.

I was interested in the House gallery the other day in listening to the remarks of Hon. Mr. Mann, Congressman from Illinois, who stated certain facts which I think everybody ought recognize as existing. He said:

Mr. Chairman, the distance from Boston to Montgomery, Ala., by rail is 1,281 miles. The distance from Chicago to Montgomery is 748 miles. The rate on firstclass freight (Southern classification) by all rail from Boston to Montgomery is $1.26 per 100 pounds. The rate from Chicago on the same class is $1.38 per 100. Chicago is 533 miles nearer to Montgomery than is Boston, but the rate is 12 cents per 100 less from Boston than it is from Chicago.

The rate on fifth-class freight from Boston to Montgomery is 66 cents per 100, and on the same class from Chicago is 67 cents per 100. Although the distance from Chicago to Montgomery is only a little more than half the distance from Boston to Montgomery, yet in each case in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Southern classification the rate from Boston is less than the rate from Chicago.

The distance from Boston to Atlanta is 1,106 miles. The distance from Chicago to Atlanta is 733 miles.

And he proceeds to point out that although the distance from Chicago to Atlanta and Montgomery is perhaps some 400 or 500 miles less than from Boston to those points, yet the rate per 100 pounds is actually less from Boston to those points than it is from Chicago to those points, and he points out the fact that the manufacturing industries of New England, the section from which I come, have a differential in their favor over the manufacturing establishments of the Middle Northwest in reaching those southern points.

D & P-05-12

Then he takes up the rates from New York to Chicago, and from Chicago to San Francisco, and shows that goods going on the same train to points on the Pacific coast from New York actually pay less per 100 pounds than the goods going from Chicago to points this side of San Francisco, and he points out the fact that from Lincoln, Nebr., to Galveston the rate is less than from Lincoln to New York, and

so on.

You are, of course, all familiar with the long struggle that has been going on for twenty-odd years between Boston and New York on the one side, and Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Newport News on the other, over the differentials that exist between those ports. Take grain, for instance, from points on the Mississippi River; the rate per hundredweight from the Mississippi River to Newport News and Baltimore is 1 cents less than it is to Boston and New York, and it is a cent less to Philadelphia.

I appeal to you Senators as lawyers, and as practical men also, that if Congress assumes the work of regulating railway rates, it will be bound, by the limitation of the Constitution I have referred to, to wipe out every differential of every character between the several ports. It needs but the suggestion to bring to your attention the vast consequences of such a course. For remember that if this EschTownsend bill becomes a law the whole power of making rates will be vested in the tribunal to be created under that bill. You can not disguise it, you can not blink at it, you can not hoodwink anybody when they come to look at it. The full power to determine rates is vested in that body, and when they exercise that power they will be bound to exercise it according to the constitutional requirements.

Of course, should they attempt to do otherwise, the Supreme Court of the United States will say to them: You are as much bound by that limitation as Congress is, and you would have no more right to establish by law a differential in favor of Newport News or Baltimore as against Boston and New York than Congress would have. I think it is not necessary for me to point out to you that if a bill should be introduced in Congress to directly declare that the rate

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you there. Why should not the Commission be able so to make these differentials as to be reasonable: is it your argument that it would be a discrimination against ports? Mr. DAVENPORT. Certainly, it is a preference.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the rates were established to points other than ports?

Mr. DAVENPORT. I wish to say to you that the minute you begin to adjust these things you have got to go the whole figure.

Senator DOLLIVER. You mean that the rates could not be adjusted without giving a preference to some port or ports?

Mr. DAVENPORT. It could not be done.

Senator DOLLIVER. There is a difference in distance.

Mr. DAVENPORT. But that is another matter.

Senator FORAKER. Why should there be a differential?

Mr. DAVENPORT. I was calling attention to the fact of the tremendous revolution that will necessarily take place in the principle of rate making should you Senators pursue the course which it seems as if Congress were inclined to pursue.

Senator NEWLANDS. Your argument is that the differential enters largely into the existing system?