Sunday, October 16, 2011

Age of Railroads

1. What problems did employees of the railroad companies face?
The railroads that spanned the continent were mostly built by immigrants and desperate Civil War veterans. These workers faced horrible working conditions, even by the standards of the 19th century. They were working in extremely treacherous terrain; the Chinese building from the west had to cross the Rocky Mountains. The workers also had to worry about attacks from Indians, angry at the raping of their land. Not to mention, if any diseases were contracted while working on the railroad, there were no hospitals anywhere nearby. For the most part, when you got sick, you were dead. Constant accidents led to even more deaths and injuries as well. In 1888, there were an estimated 2,000 deaths and 20,000 injuries in the process of building the railroads.

2. What was it like to live as a Pullman employee in the town of Pullman?
At first, living in Pullman seemed luxurious to the employees of the Pullman Company. They had good housing, and all the necessities for life were provided for them. However, it came at a price. The town was very strictly controlled by the company. Pullman wanted to foster a productive work environment, so he allowed no alcohol or loitering in the town. There was a financial price as well. In the late 19th century, Pullman cut all the employees pay without lowering the rent, which sparked a huge strike. This strike was likely the manifestation of years of frustration from and overly controlling company.

3. Who was involved in Crédit Mobilier, and what was the purpose of this company?
Stockholders in the Union Pacific Railroad created the company Crédit Mobilier. They then used this company to make incredibly huge profits by contracting railroads for two to three times the cost. This company was used to make money for the stockholders in Union Pacific Railroad, which included some members of congress. This corruption led to a federal investigation of the company, and found the stockholders to have about $23 million dollars of corrupt profit from the company.

4. In what ways did the railroad companies use their power to hurt farmers?
Railroad companies were giving huge land grants by the government in order to build the railroads, and the government had the intention that they’d sell the rest of the land to settlers in order to spur the agriculture in the west. The companies did not do this; they simply sold it to other companies for a higher profit. With the agricultural industry shrinking already, the railroad companies made it even more difficult for farmers to get out of debt when they created fixed prices. However, if a farmer needed to transport materials over a short distance and had only on railroad company that was close enough, this company would demand outrageously high prices, knowing they were the only option.

5. Why didn’t the decision in the Munn v. Illinois case succeed in checking the power of the railroads?
Munn v. Illinois was a court case regarding the Granger laws, which were a form of public outcry against the power of the railroad companies. The Supreme Court rules in favor of the Grangers, stating that the companies had to “establish maximum freight and passenger rates and prohibit discrimination.” This sounds like a win for the Grangers, but the slightly ambiguous wording led to another court decision saying that the government couldn’t set rates on interstate commerce. This went back on the precedent of government regulation that had been set in Munn v. Illinois.

6. Why didn’t the Interstate Commerce Act immediately limit the power of the railroads? 
The Interstate Commerce Act reinforced the precedent of regulation set by Munn v. Illinois. It gave the government power to regulate the railroad industry once again. However, it ended up being quite ineffectual. The legal process for bringing the companies to justice was incredibly long and arduous. Not to mention, in 1897, the Supreme Court ruled that the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) could not set maximum railroad rates. This ruling almost completely took away the little power that the ICC had. 

No comments:

Post a Comment