Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1884-08-30
In OTHER STATES.
How Railroad Com missions
Have Operated Elsewhere.
The Experience of New York snd Aichi-
gan Farmers and BUSINESS Men.
Nashville Banner.

NaEnVllle b0Qner.
Reference having been made to the
report of the New York Railroad Com
missioners by newspaper hostile to
railroad Interests in this State, We de-
sire to give the true significance Of that
report.
In April of 1888, q bill was intro
dueed in the Senate of the State OF
New York, providing for regulation
of the freight charges OF railroads IN
that State, and especially for adjusting.
local freight rates on pro rata basis OF
through rates. This bill was referred
to the Board of Commissioners, which
Immediately prepared a circular call
ing for all facts, opinions and sugges-
tions in relation to the proprlety OF the
adoption of the bill, or of any proposed
amendment to the railroad laws of the
State.
Twelve thousand of these circulars
were sent to oranges, agricultural So
| cieties, farmers, dealers, produce deaf
| ers, boards of trade and other COM
mercial bodies, railroad companies,
| business firms and manufacturers. A
great many responses were returned,
| and opinions and suggestions were
presented from every conceivable
| standpoint.
After an intelligent, painstaBlng, I'M
partial and exhaustive investigation
of the subject, the board advised
against the bill as proposed or as
amended in any, of the communlcaT
tons to the board, and, furthermore,
took the broad ground that no specific
rate-fixing legislation could be recon-
mended, and suggested that the remedy
tor alleged abuses lay properly in re-
formatory action taken by the raul
roads themselves for their own in
terest in perfecting pleasant and mu
tually profitable relations with tnen
patrons. 4g
The reasons which warrant th1fse5n
clusion are incorporated in tine numel
GUS reports and arguments presents
| to the board, and the decision is ais
justified by the lamentable failure
made by States which attempted sue
regulations of freight rates. Mr.. i
L. Howe, OF .Oswego, who ships so
coo, 0o0 pounds of freight each year
and whose interest calls for the loves
rates, voiced the opinion of man,
business men, who alike are after th,
cheapest rates. when he said: 9Th,
question of freight rates should be lef
to be handled by those directly in
terested. like all other business, upon
business principles, as they must be
Influenced largely by circumstances
and conditions surrounding and ne
cessarily entering into the varied trans
actions, and cannot be controlled by
any arbitrary fixed rule"
The Michigan Commissioner ex-
presses the same truth in his report of
1880, az follows:
1t is certain that no rates can be made
of: universal application to all roads
alike without working the grossest IN
4 Justice and hardship. The consideration
i OF cost OF doing the business enters so
largely into the question of rates, while
4 the conditions of roadbed, graduate and
character Of line generally have so much
influence in determining the cost on
| each particular road, that it is not at all
| certain that the interests of the public
and the corporations will not be the best
promoted by leaving the great principle
OF supply and demand" to regulate the
price OF railroad transportation the same
as it does that Of the commodities car
ried.
The principle applies to the work
and interference of commissiono as
well. No commission can properly
regulate matters which depend upon
the contingencies of varying circum-
stance, trade and competition, which
variously affect each line of road.
Minnesota tried that experiment, and
the rates prescribed by the commits
sion produced such new and unheard-
of discrimination the whole law was
speedily repealed. Michigan tried it,
and it was found so utterly impracti-
cable the law was disregarded by the
railroads with the consent of the peo-
pie. Ohio has such a law, and it is a
dead letter which nobody observes.
The miserable failures in other States
would greatly iengthen the list.
Although the New York Board speak
from an interested standpoint, and
would naturally endeavor to magnify
the value and necessity of a commits
sion, the whole tenor of their report is
to the policy of interference,
such as is contemplated bv the pres
ent law in Tennessee. Yet no outside
evidence is necessary to show this.
The attempt in this State is acknowl
edged to be a monumental failure.
The law creating a commission in
Tennessee is an absurdity which is
under the ban of judicial condemna-
lion, and to elect Commissioners under
It would be equivalent to electing
without law.