New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-06-08
GOVERNMENT RAILROADING.
TUE NATIONAL RAILROAD COMMISSION

The Hon. WILLIAM WINDOW United States SENATE
SIR: see by The Congressional Record that mat
tiers connected with transportation are no" occu-
pying the attention of the Senate, and presume
that before Congress adlourns some action VIII DE
taken ON the "McCrary BILL 50 called, designed to
regulate commerce by rail between the states.
That measure passed the House of Representatives
on the Goth of March, and is STILL presume, in the
hands of the Senate Committee of which you are
chairman. II is framed on the general model of the
laws IN force, and creating 80 much dicussion,
IN Illinois and Wisconsin. and is intended 20 regu-
late the cost of transportation by rail- The funda-
mental principle Of all this class Of laws is the dele
gazing of legislative power necessary TO the
regulation of railroad tariffs TO boards of commits
ioners. Many of the States have already organized
such boards and the McCrary bill looks to the
creation of one for the entire country This is the
present popular panscea for railroad abuses. In
your speech of May a. on the general transpOrta-
tlon question. notice that IN place of such board
you suggest the creation of bureau of commerce
which is 20 be clothed with portion of its powers
and duties
believe II has been my fortune to have more &C
tual experience a railroad commissioner than any
other IN America was one OF the original APP
pontees on the Massachusetts Board, and / have
been continued upon it TO this time. My views.
therefore on the question now before Congress may
have more value than they would otherwise be en-
titled to. The experience have had does not lead
me 10 be satisfied either with the McCrary bill, or
with your suggestion of a simple measure for in
yestigation. ! am disposed TO think that the first
measure goes a great deal too far. and that your
suggestion does not 90 far enough Let me explain
myself. The McCrary Dill creates board of nine
railroad commissioners who are 70 investigate the
affairs Of all the railroads the country and. where
they think necessary are TO establish for individual
n fara nd freirh VIII
subsequent process of law TO be taken the measure
of what Is reasonable IN the way OF charges until
decided to be otherwise by the verdict of jury on
appeal 70 the courts This IL the fundamental idea
upon which the law is elaborated. Your suggestion
of bureau abandons all immediate attempt at regu
lation and looks simply 70 the procuring of statis
mes with view, perhaps, TO better considered ac
ton IN the future.
The respect in which the McCrarv bill goes too
far is briefly this The general body of railroad
tariffs in this country now made NJ by the freight
and ticket agents of the several hnes-being some
1900 OF 200O in number-undar responsibility 10
their several boards of directors The tariffs thus
framed are found by portion Of the public 10 be
unsatisfactory The McCrary bill proposes 10 remedy
the evil by creating aspeces of board for the revision
of these tariffs, composed Of nlne public officials,
from whose decisions an appeal lies, not TO the
owners Of the property but to the petit jures Of the
country The Investigations l have made no less
than such experience l have had. all go TO con
vince me that the remedy VII not cure the evil
do not believe 1t is possible for any nine men, no
matter how honest or experienced they may be-
10 properly revise all the running railroad tariffs IN
use IN the United States. Even If they could, do
not beieve-indeed | know perfectly well
that they would not be able 70 reach the
root of the present q hculty. That difficulty
Is the natural outgrowth of your whole theory
and system of railroad construction. and you
cannot eradicate u il tins way, unless you are pre-
pared % 20 all lengths and upset that system. IL
may well he that the system not the best possbIe
such a. il - however II is there and many of the
evils that are complained of every AT all famil-
iar with II knows are vital 20 il. II IS the system
Of private ownership regulated by competition, and
the effort through the McCraTy bill Is TO secure TO
the nuhic all the benefit of competition without any
Of is burdens. 1t be. The comIn ap
pointed under that bill, II II becomes law VIII
lind themselves placed IN an impossible position
they viii be forced IN their decisions 20 be either
arbitrary OF absurd. They can be guided neither by
principles nor by precedent They must unless they
doggeJIv content themselves with some barbarOus
"rule of thumb" ike the Wisconsin law, settle
each case on It's OWE individual merits and the con
sequence would be that they would soon accumulate
about themselves a cloud Of apparent ineonslsten-
c:es IN which their enemies would revei, while the
public wandered more A0pelessly beiogged than
ever.
Such nv experience tells me would he the fate OF
n commissioner under the McCrary bill; the more
honest and Intellig gent be the greater difficulty
he would have in making his decisions consistent
ana the more he would lay himself open 10 attack
The bureau suggested by you, on the contrary, pro-
vdes COZ 10 commission AT all. IL looks 70 the aeeu-
mutation of material only, and does not even pre-
tend 70 bring the official in contact with the dif-
fcuitie- Of the position Under these circumstances
our experience mere IN Massachusetts ought TO De
of come service 70 the United States Our COMMITS
slou is organized OF a principle peculiar 10 ltseh'
which 10 other state has copied and which Just
cuts between the do everything policy OF the
McCrarv bill. and the " DO nothing suggestion of
your speech
me Massachusetts, Commission may be said, in
regard 10 tariffs - have executOry power what
ever: It's functions are simply advisory. Accord
inslv whe,, the board was tirst organized, and l
was appointed upon II, felt the utmost doubt
whether anything could be accomplished without a
radical alteration in the law. The Commissioners
were authorized 10 do nothing except TO listen, 10
investigate. and 10 recommend. Almost any one
having OF thinking that he had cause OF com
plant against a railroad corporation could bring II
TO the nOrce OF the board. whose duty il became To
examine into the complaint, 70 hear the parties IN
teres.ed. and then 70 arrive at formal decision,
either dismissing IT making distinct recon-
mendatiOn 70 the corporation complained Of with
that their functions ceased. They could take no
stems 20 enforce their recommendation they could
merely make il and report ii, with any consequent
action Of the corporation to the Legislature. Their
Recommendations thus simply went fOr what they
were worth in themselves they carried no weight