The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1898-05-11
o POWER TO REGULATE.
No Remedy but Government Owner
ship.


The Interstate commerce commission
has virtually thrown up the sponge
Hand in hand with the annulment of the
state regulation by the supreme court of
the United States comes the annual re-
port OF the Interstate commerce commits
sion, saying that the law under which it
operates has been practically repealed Ivy
the federal courts.
The commission gives the history of
several cases which have been appealed
from the tribunal to the federal courts
in the past two years with the result as
given above. Among them is the case Of
the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas
Pacific Railway: In this case COM
plant was made that rates charged By
the company were unreasOnably high
Inc commission after full hearing de-
cided in favor of the complainant and
issued an order reducing the rate to what
it considered reasonable under the testi-
mony. The case was carried up to the
supreme court, which decided in the
words of it's own syllabus that, The
interstate commerce commission is not
empowered, either expressly or by i'm
pllcatlon, to fix rates in advance" That
IS TO say, this decision forbids the inter-
state commerce commission from fixing
rates in any case whatever. If the COM
mission thinks a rate is unreasonable #
may SO declare, but it cannot say what
rate is reasonable. Speaking of this de-
clslon the commission says in it's report:
The commission exercised the power
IN a case commenced in the second month
AFTER Its organization and continued 10
exercise it for period of more than
lO years, during which time no member
OF the commission ever officially oues-
toned the existence of such authority o-
failed to join in it's exercise. AS already
stated, the authority of the commission
TO modify and reduce an established rate
and to enforce reasonable rate for the
future was not questioned in the answer
OF the defendant in the Atlanta rate case
decided March 80, 1896, nor had it ever
been denied in any of the answers made
to more than four hundred cases preyi-
ously commenced, many of them alleging
unreasonable and unjust cnarges ana
praying the commission to enforce a
reduction and lower rates in the future
That is, for ten years the commission
has been exercising the right under the
Interstate commerce law of hearing evil
dence upon complaints that rates were
unreasonable and if it found the EVIL
dence sustaining the charges, it ordered
the rates reduced to what it believed was
reasonable.
1t is now stopped at the first step by
the supreme court 1t can hear evil
dences; 1t can decide whether rate ia
reasonable or not, but that is where It
must quit. AS the report we'll saws on
page 49,:
The same rule of Interpretation which
denies the authority of the commission
to Tx reasonable rate for the future.
after issue made and facts found, will.
when the occasion arises, be found to
leave the commission without any au-
thority, in the absence of additional leg
1slation, to enforce any order to prevent
unjust discrimination or undue prefer
ence in the future. The other sections
and provisions of the law are in aid of
and were intended to make effective, the
first three sections, which relate to and
were intended to make unlawful and to
prohibit unreasonable charges, unjust
and without authority to make these
three sections effective, in the future
practically all the commission can Go
toward executing and enforcing the vital
principles of the act is to inquire into
wrongs done in the past and report the
result of its investigation to itself.
IF the Interstate commission cannot
fix reasonable rate when it finds an I'M
reasonable one, how on earth is it to be
fixed? What remedy is left to the peo-
pie who suffer from an unreasonable
rate?
1.-The United States supreme court was
kind. 1t gives permission to the people
of the state of Nebraska to apply to the
federal circuit court for leave to regulate
railway charges In that state. That was
in the maximum rate case. In this case