Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:04:59.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Railroads Supported Regulation: The Case of Wisconsin, 1905–1910*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Stanley Caine
Stanley Caine
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History, Lindenwood College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies of the progressive era by Gabriel Kolko and Robert Wiebe have proven that much reform legislation was supported by many of the interests against which the bills were ostensibly written. Professor Caine shows that, in at least one important state, railroads fought reform bitterly, accepting the principle of regulation only when conservative administration of the Railroad Regulation Act of 1905 offered them unexpected protection from progressive reformers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , Summer 1970 , pp. 175 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform: A Study of the Progressive Movement (Cambridge, 1962).Google Scholar

2 Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, and Kolko, Gabriel, Railroads and Regulation (Princeton, 1965).Google Scholar

3 Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, 239.

4 Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism, 61.

5 Kolko makes reference to the “well-intentioned reformers” in The Triumph of Conservatism, 58.

6 Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, 3.

7 Ibid., 3, 89.

8 Howe, Frederic, Wisconsin: An Experiment in Democracy (New York, 1912), vii.Google Scholar

9 See Came, Stanley P., “Railroad Regulation in Wisconsin, 1903–1910: An Assessment of a Progressive Reform” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1967)Google Scholar, Chapter 5, for an analysis of the compromise legislation. The previous chapters develop in detail the manner in which the regulation fight evolved.

10 The sentiment of Albert R. Hall, a progressive who had fought for nearly two decades for strong regulatory legislation, was typical of the measured praise most reformers gave the legislation. “While the bill is not all that the friends of state control would like,” declared Hall, “it's a tremendous stride in the right direction.” Albert R. Hall to Robert La Follette, May 19, 1905, Robert M. La Follette Papers, Box 121 (State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison).

11 J. A. Jordan to Elisha W. Keyes, July 13, 1905, W. H. Stennett to Keyes, July 24, 1905, Elisha W. Keyes Papers, Box 94 (State Historical Society of Wisconsin).

12 This statute was replaced by a far weaker law in 1876, which resulted in only token regulation in the next three decades. See Burton, William L., “The First Wisconsin Railroad Commission: Reform or Political Expediency” (Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1952), 129–130Google Scholar, for a description of the railroads' defiance of the Potter law.

13 See Caine, “Railroad Regulation in Wisconsin,” 224–225, for a description of steps railroads took to protect themselves from the new regulatory legislation.

14 Railway World, XLIX (October 6, 1905), 792.

15 Chairman John Barnes had earlier been the Wisconsin attorney for the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railroad and had also represented the Chicago & Northwestern road on occasion. A second member, Halford Erickson, worked for seven years as a book keeper and auditor for the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway. Professor Balthasar H. Meyer of the University of Wisconsin Economics Department, the most influential member of the Commission and later a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, had written numerous articles about transportation in which he expressed his admiration for the men who ran the country's railroads. A number of these were published in railroad journals. When called to join the commission, Meyer was on a research trip in Germany which had been made possible by a $5,000 gift from his close friend, James J. Hill. See Caine, “Railroad Regulation in Wisconsin,” 167–190, for a description of the fight over commission appointments and an analysis of the thinking of the three appointees, especially Meyer.

16 See First Biennial Report of the Railroad Commission from the Organization of the Commission to June 30, 1906 (Madison, 1907), 8; John Barnes to E. S. Keeley, January 23, 1906, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, Formal Case papers, Box 5 (Southern Wisconsin Cheesemen's Association); and Burton Hanson to Winterbotham, November 29, 1905, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, General Correspondence, Box 9 (Archives of the State of Wisconsin in the custody of State Historical Society of Wisconsin).

17 See “In re Application to the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad For Leave to Discontinue Tariff on Wood for the Ashland Iron and Steel Company, October 27, 1905;” “O. G. Kinney vs. Wisconsin Central Railway Company;” “Walter L. Houser vs. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company;” “Investigation on Motion of the Commission of Grain Rates between Stations in Wisconsin and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on lines of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, July 10-August 8, 1906;” and “Southern Wisconsin Cheesemen's Protective Association vs. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, and Illinois Central Railway Company, August 13, 1906,” all in Opinions and Decisions of the Railroad Commission of the State of Wisconsin, I (Madison, 1908).

18 Lloyd W. Bowers to B. H. Meyer, August 8, 1905, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, General Correspondence, Box 6.

19 Milwaukee Sentinel, August 11, 1905.

20 See “Testimony of Thomas Gill,” Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, Minutes of Hearings, III (July 10, 1906), (“O. G. Kinney vs. Wisconsin Central”).

21 Milwaukee Sentinel, September 23, 1906.

22 Huebner, Grover, “Five Years of Railroad Regulation,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, XXXII (July 1908), 146Google Scholar; Milwaukee Free Press, May 24, 1907.

23 See Wisconsin Assembly Bills, 1901, 27A and 32A; 1903, 432A; 1905, 8A.

24 Herman Ekern to La Follette, July 17, 1906, La Follette Papers, Box 136.

25 Milwaukee Free Press, February 1, 1907. “A. E. Buell vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, February 16, 1907,” Opinions and Decisions of the Railroad Commission of the State of Wisconsin, I (Madison, 1908), 344.

26 Railway Age, XXXXIII (February 22, 1907), 233, 248–250.

27 William Ellis to Commission, February 18, 1907, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, Formal Case papers, Box 4 (A. E. Buell).

28 Milwaukee Sentinel, June 5, 1907; Railway Age, XXXXIV (July, 1907), 99–100.

29 Thomas Gill to “Messrs. John Barnes, B. H. Meyer, and Halford Erickson,” July 18, 1907, Balthasar H. Meyer Papers, vol. I (State Historical Society of Wisconsin).

30 B. H. Meyer to E. H. Bottum, July 16, 1907, Meyer Papers, vol. I.

31 E. M. Hyzer to L. P. Girard, December 14, 1911, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, General Correspondence, Box 44.

32 Meyer to Burton Hanson, October 1, 1907, and Frank P. Eyman to Meyer, September 19, 1907, vol. I; H. A. Gray to Meyer, April 15, 1908, and C. I. Sturgis to Meyer, April 1, 1909, vol. II, both in Meyer Papers.

33 Hanson to Roemer, May 8, 1909; Roemer to Hanson, May 10, 1909; Hanson to Roemer, May 10, 1909; Roemer to Hanson, May 13, 1909; Hanson to Roemer, May 15, 1909, in Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, General Correspondence, Box 25.

34 Meyer to Charles Van Hise, October 17, 1907, Meyer Papers, vol. I; Milwaukee Free Press, February 23, 1908; James J. Hill to Meyer, March 24, 1910, Meyer Papers, vol. II.

35 Lynde to Meyer, June 3, 1909, Box 25; Meyer to Gill, February 4, 1909, Box 27, both in Wisconsin Public Service Commission, General Correspondence.

36 C. I. Sturgis to Meyer, April 1, 1909, Meyer Papers, vol. II; Samuel A. Lynde to Winterbotham, October 23, 1908, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, General Correspondence, Box 25.

37 La Follette, Robert M., Autobiography (Madison, 1911), 342.Google Scholar

38 See Davidson speech marked “October, 1908,” Davidson Papers, Box 27.

39 Milwaukee Sentinel, November 11, 1905, and April 4, 1908.

40 Ibid., September 20, 1908.

41 Milwaukee Free Press, December 4, 1908.

42 Robert Eliot to John Winterbotham, February 6, 1906, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Records, General Correspondence, Box 10.

43 Railway Age Gazette, IL (December 16, 1910), 1137, and (December 23, 1910), 1200.

44 Milwaukee Free Press, December 4, 1908; Milwaukee Sentinel, December 21, 1906.