The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1884-08-27
IN OTHER STATES.
How Railroad Commissions
Have Operated EIsewhereedr
The Experience of New YORK and Mich
gan Farmers and Busiuess Men. asiaI
Nashville Banner.

Nashville Banner.
Reference having been made to the
report of the New York Railroad Com
missioners by newspaper hostile t0o
railroad interests in this State, we de-fo
! sire to give the true significance of thatri
report. and
In April of 1883, a bill was intro,
dueed in the Senate of the State q
New York, providing for a regulation
of the freight charges of railroads irio
that State, and especially for adjusting "
local freight rates on a pro rata basis O. 4
through rates. This bill was referred
to the Board of Commissioners, which
Immediately prepared circular callJa
ing for ali facts, opinions and sugges7li
tions in relation to the propriety OF the
adoption of the bill, or of any proposed
amendment to the railroad laws of the u
State %
Twelve thousand of these circulars u
We're sent to oranges, agricultural 500
cieties, farmers, dealers, produce deal
ers, boards of trade and other com-s5
mercial bodies, railroad companies3Iq
business firms and manufacturers. Asy
great many responses were returned, d,
and opinions and suggestions were :,
presented from every conceivable i
standpoint. a
After anintelligent, painstaking, i'm !
parGial and exhaustive investigation
of the subject, the board advised
against the bill as proposed or as
amended in any of the communica-
tons to the board, and, furthermore,
took the broad ground that no specific
rate-fxing legislation could be recon-
mended, and suggested that the remedy
tor alleged abuses lay properly in re-
formatory action taken by the rail
roads themselves for their own in
terest in perfecting pleasant and mu-
tually profitable relations with their
patrons.
The reasons which warrant this con-
clusion are incorporated in the numer.
Gus reports and arguments presented
to the board, and the decision is also.
justified by the lamentable failures
made by States which attempted such
regulations of freight rates. Mr.. H.
L. Howe, of Oswego, who ships 50,-
100000 pounds of freight each year,
and whose interest calls for the lowest
rates, voiced the opinion of many
business men, who alike are after the
cheapest rates, when he said: ''The
question of freight rates should be left
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-
~, L, g
1880, as follows:
It is certain that no rates can be made
of universal application to all roads
alike without working the grossest In
justice and hardship. The consideration
of cost of doing the business enters so
largely into the question of rates, while
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 a commission 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.
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 law, and it is
dead letter which nobody observes.
The miserable failures in other States
would greatly lengthen the list.
Although the New York Board speak
rom an interested standpoint, and
would naturally endeavor to magnify
he value and necessity of a commits
ion, the whole tenor of their report is
opposed to the policy of interference,
uch as is contemplated by the pres
mt law in Tennessee. Yet no outside
violence is necessary to show this.
he attempt in this State is acknowl-
dyed to be a monumental failure.
he law creating a commission in
ennessee is an absurdity which is
nder the ban of judicial condemna-
on, and to elect Commissioners under
would be equivalent to electing
ithout law.