Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-05-22

Washington. d. c., May 21.-The In
terstate Commerce Commission has
sent to Senator Cullom, Of Illinois, the
following letter in response to a request
for suggestions regarding the pooling
bill:
Washington. D. c.. May 1881
"Hon Shelby NJ. Cullom, Chairman
Committee on Interstate commerce.
United States Senate:
Dear Su:-Referring 10 your verbal
Teouesr for suggestions from this com
mission. or any Of its members. respect
iDo -ba pendiug Senate bill. No. I4Jh
or DropOsed legislation TO amend the
act To regulate commerce. it Is not prac-
ticable in a single day to prepare q Dill
or 70 add much 20 the suggestions made
IN vour subcommittee yesterday.
On January IS. 1897, this commission
sent m the honorable committee en- in
terstate and foreign commerce or lAe
House O. communication, COPY u
which is herewith enclosed, stating some
reasons why at that time all the mem
hers of this commission opposed lue
passage Of a bill then pending, tne mann
provisions of which are suDstahd9i-y
IS that now under consideration Dy
your honorable committee.
The reasons for non action then are
stronger now. there being five or more
cases pending before the United states
Supreme Court involving the most I'M
portant provisions of the act. lnese
cases have been already tried and await
the decision of the court. When decld-
ed we shall know what the law is ana
better know in what respect, II any, II
sbould be changed. The chief purpose
Of those who urge immediate lesislauon
under present conditions is 10 authorize
Dooling and undo the recent decision Oh
tbe Supreme Court in the transmits
souri, trust case as provided IN the pro-
T,osad fffb section. which is Identical
with q like provision in the So-caIed
Patterson bill of the House NO. S 900.
first session Fifty-fOurth Congress. i ms
we believe should not be donei out
should the Congress determine othet-
wise ami deem il wise 10 authorize pooi-
ing it. should be done only on terms
which will prevent the abuse OF the
privilege granted. In our opinion this
cannot be done except by guarantees
secured before the authority 20 pool Is
given and before The contract goes INTO
effect The carriers whether by rail-
road lake or river-fOr all are mclud-
ed-before being allowed TO pool should
sDecifv their rates on the traffic or buSl-
ness 10 be pooled AID the contract, WIN
maximum rates established as a part
of il. should be subject TO approval by
the commission before taking eHect.
The provision in the proposed bill mat
the commission may set aside the pool
inc contract after il has taken eHecI
and become operative is misleading.
ANY such attempt at the annulng or q
co.tract by the commission the carriers
will resist as unreasonable and unlaw-
ful and will but result in veXatious. eX-
pensive. inrerminable and, TO the COM
mission. unsuccessful law suits.
The proposed change in section SIX
that lit shall be lawful for common car
riers. whether subject 20 this act or not
To enter into agreements not tOrDlCden
bv the fifth section of this act IN regard
to making and maintaining the lawful
rates fares and charges specified in the
separate or Joint tariff schedules, pub
lished as required by this section IS
intended TO amend the antitrust law as
construed by the Supreme Court so as
10 exempt from that act carriers both
bv railroad and water. and what is said
above in respect to the fifth. or pooling,
section applies as we'll TO this amend
ment of the sixth section.
The time of notice Of increase and
reduction of rates we believe should be
extended TO at least sixty days The
facility with which rates are cut or
reduced on three days notice and in
creased after ten days notice leads to
and encourages the practices which re-
suit in uncertainty and instability OF
rates and charges. In other respects
the changes proposed in section six OF
the existing law. though relating chief
" 10 details are approved.
The change proposed TO section nine
of the acs properly drops so much OF
the section as relates to the elimination
of the witnesses tes-fyinS. The act OF
February II. 1898, and the so-called
Brown decision constitute the law on
that subject.
We approve the new section ten eX-