The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-12-17
DtSCRIMINATIONs

commission should have power to pre-
scribe rates in the future, as II has as
sumed to do in the past
DETERMINATIONS.
The lack Of power to prescribe maxi
mum reasonable rates also aHccts or
ders OF the commission prohibiting as
ordinations in rates between lndlNlu-
uals, commodities, or localities. Here the
trader instead of the consumer or pro-
duccr is more often affected, and as large
money interests are often involved, there
would he no lack Of a complainant 10
prosecute. Usually the only way 10 cor
rect the discrimination is to change the
rate, and there can he nothing in the way
of rcparaton for wrong done in the past
particularly whore the case is one OF rel
ative rates to different localities, under
the undue preference clause of the law.
The commission having no power to pre-
scribe a rate for the future, II may tol-
low that 1t can not fix a diferential as
between related charges and this should
Ie covered by any legislation had upon
This subject. one class of determinations
the commission never had power to cor
rect, even when It assumed authority to
prescribe maximum rates. Such discrim-
nations arise where service for compet-
ing localities is rendered by different ana
independent lines, as well as by COM
mon line Competition by a line reach
vents compliance by the others. The
most bitterly contested cases before the
commission are Of this character. Here
It is necessary to- have power to fix the
minimum az well as the maximum
charge. While such power would prac-
tically never be exercised, it should eX-
iHt' in order to secure Observance OF dlt-
fcrential rates and to prevent undue pref
CTenC's.
If the commission is given power to fix
Il rate. how are its orders to be made eff
fectiyc and what is to be the attitude OF
the courts toward such orders? If the
lHte ia fixed by a commission, the right
of judicial inquiry may he secured by
proceedings 10 directly review the order
fixing tho rate 4 case before the COM
mission proceeds exactly as IL would pro-
coed in court. but its order now amounts
10 nothing, The carrier incurs no PEN
atty or loss il It chooses to disobey. In
a suit brought in court to enforce the
order. the testimony must be entirely
retalicn. and neither party is confined TO
what was done before the commission.
The court usually decides upon differ
rnt state of facts, ana when it refuses
to enforce the order II apparently decides
that tho order was wrong, though upon
the facts before the commission II may
have been absolutely right. Some effect
should be given to the trial before the
commission. The present procedure tcndS
to bring the commission into disreputc,
and Is grossly unfair to it and complain
ants who appear before il. The delay
involved in AN attempt to enforce an or
der of the commission in the courts is
unjust and often fatal to regulation. The
average time involved has been four
years The power of a regulating body,
however limited. should be capable of
immediate application, The carrier mas
now nothing to lose and everything to
gain by continuing To charge the eN-
cessive rate. shippers are also deferred
by the delay from bringing complaints,
for while the case is pending the carrier
may ruin the competing shipper in va
rous ways. If the commission could
grant speedy relief this would not hap
pen.
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
The testimony before the commission
should be the record before the court,
and the court should instruct the COM
mission to take and send up any addi-
tional testimony found necessary. Penal
ties should be provided for disobedience
sufficient to make compliance certain.
Provision should also be made for appli-
cation to the court to enforce the order
by mandatory process. The problem of
regulation is important and delicate. but
the necessity for regulation is universally
recognized. The act to regulate com
morce was passed in obedience to pop
uar demand and to remedy admitted
evils. and the experience OF ten years
has demonstrated the necessity and jus
tiCe of such pn act. AS that law has
been interpreted there can be no ef-
fcctive regulation of interstate carriers,
and if this is to be the act must be
amended. tribunal which can stand
for justice and fairness between these
carriers and tho people must have power
to fix maximum rate, to fix a minimum
Il lore
must mean something.
RATE CUTTING.
1t is one thing to secure publication
of the proper rate and another thing 10
secure adherence to it, Under the sta
tute it is a criminal offcnse for rail-
way official To give or a shipper to take
less than the tariff rate. At first it was
impossible to obtain evidence of such rate
cutting, because witnesses could not he
compelled to Criminate themselves. This
was cured hy an amendment of the law
which the Supreme court held constitu-
tional in the Brown case. After that de-
Cision railroad managers loudly protest
ed their intention TO maintain rates but
ii soon began To be charged. and even
tacitly admitted by railway officials, that
tariff rates We're dsregarded. In a re-
cent investigation by the commission. of,
fiCcrS OF railways engaged in traffic &c
known whether rates had been depart
ed from testified without exception thai
they had in all cases been maintained
Nevertheless, tho fact is we'll underst oot
80 he otherwise. The large shipper trust
mOnOpOly, rCaps the benefit of these cuts
The small shipper pays the full rate
Tho honest shipper may he proven tee
from doing business at all. The sam,
is also true with carriers. As a rul,
they want 10 obey the law. Under exist
ing conditions dishonest railway official!
and dishonest shippers may compel ev
cry competing railway and every com
pCting shipper TO be dishonest also o
withdraw from the business, How IA
this OUTRAGEOUS situation extends tn,
commission has no knowledge. but II 4
certain that II exists to a considerable
extent; and that there is pressing meet
of a remedy Is not denied. The carrier
claim that the remedy lies in the pas
sage OF a pooling bill.
POOLING.
As to the wisdom of this legislation
the commission is not agreed A major
ity of the commission think that pool
ing would improve the rate situation, AM
the present condition is go disastrou
that they would he inclined to indors
in good faith any way out of it; but
pooling produces any beneficial results
necessarily does so at the expense o
competition by legalizing pooling tn
public loses the only protection Il nov
has against the unreasonable exaction
OF transportation agencies. Still in vieN
of the whole situation, n majority of tn
commission would be inclined to recon
mend that the eXpedient be tried II suit
able safeguards are provided i'm advance
but this recommendation must be take
only with the limitation stated. Th
members of the Interstate commerc