The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-05-21
To Amy and All Pooling Bills
Unless Provision Is
MADE FOR APPROVAL
Of the Rate Schedule by the
Commission.
Members Write a Letter to SEN
atOr CuIlOm.
Want to Know What the Com
mission is For.

Washington, May 21-The interstate
commerce commission has sent to Sen
atOr CuIIom of Illinois the following let
ter in response to a request for Sugges-
tions regarding the pooling bill:
Hon. Shelby M. Culom, Chairman Com
mittee ON Interstate Commerce, U. ).
Senate
Dear Sir:-Referring to your verbal
request for suggestions from this COM
mission, or any of it's members respect
ing the pending senate bill No 1897, or
proposed legislation to amend the act to
regulate commerce it is not practicable
in a single day to prepare a bill, or to
add much to the suggestions made to
your sub b-cOmmittee yesterday.
On January Is, 1897, this commission
sent to the honorable committee on in
terstate and foreign commerce of the
house a communication copy of
which is herewith enclosed, stating some
reasons why at that time all the mem
bers of this commission opposed the
passage of a bill then pending; the
main provisions of which are substan-
TALLY as that now under consideration
by your honorable committee. The
reasons for nOn-actiOn then are strong
er now, there being five or more cases
pending before the United States su-
pren1e court involving the most import
ant provisions of the act. These cases
have been already tried and await the
decision of the court When decided we
shall know what the law is and better
know in what respect, if any it should
be changed.
The chief purpose of those who urge
it1l1Il6NidIC ICSlSIdllOn unQ6E present
conditions is to authorize pooling and
undo the recent decision of the supreme
court in the tranSmiSSOuri, antitrust
case as provided in the proposed fifth
section, which is identical with a like
provision in the so-calIed Patterson bill
of the house No. 1887, first session, 54th
congress. This, we believe, should not
be done: but should the congress deter
mine otherwise and deem it wise to
authorize pooling, it should be done on
ly on terms which will prevent the
-lh + l7R Loo
opinion this cannot be done except by
guarantees secured before the authority
to pool is given and before the contract
goes into effect.
The carriers whether by railroad la Ie
or river-for all are inc1uded-be-
fore being allowed TO pool should specf-
fy their rates on the traffic or business
to be pooled and the contract. with
maximum rates established as a part of
it, should be subject to approval by the
commission before taking effect. The pro-
vision in the proposed bill that the
commission may set aside the pooling
contract after it has taken effect and
become operative. is misleading Any
such attempt at the annulling of a. con-
tract by the commission the carriers
will resist as unreasonable and unIaw-
fUl and will but result in vexatiOus ex-
pensive interminable and to the com
mission, unsuccessful lawsuits
The proposed change in section 6, that
1t shall be unlawful for common car
rierS, whether subject to this act or
not, to enter into agreements. not for
hidden by the fifth section of this act
in regard to making and maintaining
the lawful rates, fares and charges
specified in the separate or Joint traf
fic schedules, published as required by
this section" is intended to amend the
antitrust law as construed by the su-
preme court so as to exempt from that
act carriers by railroads and by water
and what is said above in respect to
the fifth or pooling section applies as
well to this amendment of the sixth
section.
This time of notice of increase and
reduction of rates, we believe should
be extended to at least so days. The
facility with which rates are cut or re-
duced 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 of
the existing law, though relating chiefly
to details, are approved.
The change proposed to section of
the act properly drops so much of the
section as relates to the elimination of
witnesses testifying. The act of Feb
ruary II, 1898, and the so-called Brown
decision constitute the law on this SUBJ
ject.
We approve the new section 10, ex-
cept the omission or repeal of the i'm
prisOnment clause. In our opinion
this clause should be restored, so that
the court in its discretion may imprison
-
In the new section u the clause re-
lating to the elimination of witnesses
is omitted as it is in section 9, and for
the reason above stated.
The proposed amendment to section
13 authorizes the commission to require
answers to petitions or complaints to
be verified; also requires testimony to
be taken down, written out and fled in
accordance with the present practice
of the commission.
Section IA, as proposed, repeals so
much of the present law as makes find
ings of the commission prinna facie evil
dence in all judicial proceedings as ito
every fact found" This provision of
existing law should be continued in full
force.
Neither by the 18th section, as it is
proposed to be changed, nor by any
other pending provision, is the COM
mission empowered in express terms to
determine what is, as well as what is
not a reasonable rate. Until after the
decision of the social circle case March
80, 1896, the right and duty of the com
mission, after due notice. hearing and
investigation, to fix maximum legal
questioned.
ascertain and declare the legal maxi
has been raised and is involved in sew
eral of the cases awaiting decision by
the supreme court already referred to.
If it is the purpose of congress to make
the commission only a bureau of in
vestigation, without authority through
the courts, or otherwise to correct
abuses found on Investigation to exist