The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-05-22
BILL Is REVIEWED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OOMMIs-
SION OFFERS SUGGESTIONS,

to Senator Cullom, Chairman of tn
Committee on Interstate Commerc,
Comparing Present Proposals. With E,
listing Enactments and Pointing On
Changes Necessary to Mako the Com
mission What it was Intended to BE.
Washington, May 21.-The interstate
commerce commission has sent TO Sen
ator Cullom of Illinois the following let
Ter, in response TO a request for sugges-
tons regarding the pooling bill:
Washington, May 10, 1897.
"Hon. Shelby NJ. Cullom, Chairman
Committee on Interstate Commerce,
United States Senate.
Dear Sir-Referring TO your verbal
request for suggestions from this COM
nlittee, or any Of its members, respect
ing the pending senate bill No. 1897, or
proposed legislation to amend the act TO
regulate commerce, it is not practicable
in single day 10 prepare bill or to
add much 70 the suggestions made TO
your subcommittee yesterday.
"On January %, 1897, this commission
sent TO the honorable committee on IN
terstate and foreign commerce OF the
mouse communication, a copy Of which
is herewith enclosed, stating some rea-
sons why at that time all the members
OF this commission opposed the passage
OF a bill then pending, the main provis-
ions of which are substantially the same
as that now under consideration by 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 involv-
ing the most important provisions Of the
act These cases have been already
tried and await the decision Of the court
When decided we shall know what the
iaw is and better know in what respect.
IL any. il should be changed. The chief
purpose of those who urge immediate
legislation under present conditions is 70
authorize pooling and undo the recent
decision Of the supreme court in the
Trans-Missorui antitrust case, as pro-
v.ded In the proposed fifth section, which
Is identical with a like provision in the
so-caued Patterson bill, of the house. No.
1897, first session, Fifty-fourth congress.
This, we believe, should not be done; but
should the congress determe otherwise
and deem it wise to authorize pooling, it
should be done only on terms which will
prevent the abuse of the privilege grant
ed. In our opinion, this cannot be done
except by guarantees secured before the
authority 10 pool is given and before the |
contract goes into effect. The carriers, |
whether by railroad, lake or river-for |
ali are ncluded-before being allowed 10
pool should specify their rates on the |
traffic or business to be pooled, and the |
contract, with maximum rates estah- |
lished as part of II, should be subject |
10 approval by the commission before |
taking effect. The provision in the pro- |
posed bill that the commission may set |
aside the pooling contract after il has |
taken effect and become operative, Is |
misleading. Any such attempt at the |
ennulling OF a contract by the commits |
sion, the carriers will resist as unrea- /
sonable and unlawful and will but re-
suit in vexatious, expensive, internina-
bic and, to the commission, unsuccess-
full, lawsuits.
THE proposed change in section that
1t snail be unlawful for common carriers, |
whether subject TO this act or not, to
enter into agreements no; forbidden 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 traffic schedules, pub
lished as required by this section is in
tended TO amend the antitrust law as
by the supreme court so as TO |
exempt from that act carriers both by
railroad and by water, and what is said
above in respect to the fifth, or pooling. |
section applies as well to this amend
nent OF the sixth section.
The time OF notice of increase and re-
luction Of rates.. We believe, should be
extended 10 at least sixty days. The |
AGILITY with which rates are cut or re-
iuced on three days notice and fncreas-
ID after ten days notice leads to and en-
'ourages the practices which result ir |
uncertainty and instability OF rates and |
,narges. In other respects the change
proposed in section OF the existing LAW
housh relating chiefly 10 details, arr
approved.
a
he act properly drops so much OF the
ec,ion as relates 10 the C limitation OF
witnesses testffying. The act OF Feb
uary IL, 1893, and the so-called Brown
ecision, constitute the law on that sub
sct
we approve the new section 10 ex
ept the commission or repeal Of the i'm
risonment clause. In our opinion, this
lause should be restored, so that the
ourt in Us discretion may imprison |
agrant and repeating offenders.
In the new section IL. the clause re
';ing TO the elimination of witnesses is
mitted, as il is in section 9. and for thu
eason above stated
The proposed amendment to section
authorizes the commission TO require ?
nswers 20 petitions or complaints 20 he
eTined; also requires testimony TO h.
AIKEN down. written out and hled in ar (
ordance With the present practice OF the |
J
section IA, as proposed. repeats So 1
iuch or the present law as makes me (
ndlngs OF the commission prima fscis
whence IN all judicial proceedings as 70
very fact found. This provision % ~ | G
ting law should be continued in fru I
,rce. 4
Neither by the fifteenth section. as !, y
proposed 10 be changed, nor by any {
her pending provision. is the comm,s :,
on empowered in express terms 70 de- y
rmine what is as well as wha; is not | :
asonable rate. Until after the decision | !.
the Social Circle case. March so. 1896 | Il
lie right and duty OF the commission | y
ter the notice, hearing. and .nvestiga- | {
on, 10 fix maximum legal rate in a | {
LSe naI.ar sarif,r,Si.- .r,,ass.inr.as L p