The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-04-08
DANGERS IN CULLOM BILL
MORE POWERS TO INTERSTATE
y l.
COMMERCE COMMISSION
The Bill Analysed by President
smith and the Objections to, the
Grant of the Powers Asked Point
ed Out, While the Arguments for
1t Are Criticised and An
SwerNI

PdHy, presents, in the April Forum,
MS reasons for considering the demands
OF the interstate commerce commission
Tor enlargement OF it's powers to be
dangerous. He makes the Cullom bill.
introduced In the senate last January,
ana Which embodies the suggestions of
amendments contained in the report OF
me commission, the text of his article.
After specifying them in detail he sum-
marizes them and their effect in the
following language:
~, IN otner words the proposition is to give
the commission the power to regulate in
me most complete and extensive manner
nnna ia. every detail of interstate rail-
ae es Iamc; all such regulations to take
emect Without any resort to judicial trbun-
ais 1or their enforcement and ordinarily
n III spnte OF the tendency of proceedings of
review In court. Relief from the regu!a-
liohs can be obtained only when the car
rlers go into court and there show that the
t ti are unlawful; whereas, the in
tehtlon OF congress in creating the inter-
state commerce commission was simply to
CONFER upon 1t such powers as would en-
aDie ~ TO ascertain violations of the law,
anu 10 proceed In the courts for their
correction. The purpose is to change the
commission from a mere auxiliary tribunal.
assisting the courts in their lawful work
f tn.o tribunal with vast original powers
iai sreater tnan any court can exercise,
ana which can be made effective without
any resort to the courts
He then proceeds to consider the rea-
sons assigned for the proposed increase
ol jurisdiction. The argument that it
Is apsolutely essential to clothe the
gress should authorize railway COM
panes to pool their traffic, is met by
MIN with the statement that it rests
upon the fallacious theory that pooling
contracts destroy the competition that
regulates rates, and that, if such COM
petition be destroyed, the regulation of
r IL must be given TO the commission.
To this he replies:
This argument proceeds on the erroneous
theory that pooling contracts destroy The
competition that regulates rates, and that.
II 1a. sueh competition be destroyed. the regu-
mission. But the effective competition in
the regulation Of rates. is not so much
competition between railroads which would
OF could pool their traffic, as competition
with waterways and > between markets
wnlch cannot be destroyed or controlled
either by pooling contracts or otherwise
Il IL railroads be permitted to pool their traf-
rates.
Again, to the argument that similar
powers are given the English railway
commission, he makes answer that,
While 1t is true, that commission not
only possesses the powers of a court,
bers being judges of superior courts
and one of the other two must be a
man experienced in railway matters
The commission is made a court of
record by the act creating it, and it's
sole business is to hear and determine
complaints and determine the relief
which the law allows. 1t acts as Judi
claily, constituting the railway laws as
does law court constituting the civil
law. None of our interstate commits
sion is judge, none of them is or is
required to be experienced in railway
management. and "jn fact none of them
has had such experience" 1t is more
OF an 1nquisitorial body than a court:
sort of grand jury restricted to mat
tiers relating to railways. The English
court cannot make rates except under
restrictions. through rates; that power
is reserved to parliament -. =
he meets the argument Of the hostil-
ity of the courts which has deprived the
act of its intent, destroyed it's efficacy
and prevented the commission from
prescribing rates, with denial that
there is to be found either in the act
or in the debates preceding it, any evi,
dence Of the grant or intended grant
Of such power. He examines the re-
port of the committee transmitting the
original bill and the debates upon it,
and shows that the courts have merely
construed the law according to its let
ter, in which is to be found no such
grant. One ground for the request for
increased power is that, unless the
commission can make rates for the en-
tire railway system Of the country,
there will be no adequate remedy for
extortionate charges. To this he re-
plies:
Moreover, the argument proceeds solely
upon the absolutely false assumption that
rates in general in this country are ex-
tortionate: whereas in fact. they are ad-
m:tted to be remarkably low and generally,
to have deere sed rapidly in the past few
years. If any rates are too high, such rates
are out of line with the general adjustment
and fer that reason are in conflict with the
present law and can. be. readily corrected
under 1t. Since rates in general are ad-
mittedly not extortiorate since il any
particular rates are too high. ample oppor-
tunity for correction now exists; and since
all other reasons urged by the commission
for radical changes in the law are utterly
groundless, the public now has ample pro-
lection and there is not the. slightest ex
cuse for such sweeping legislation. The
public has infinitely more protection for the
really vital commercial interests involved
than it could possibly have if the CONNER
cial deStinies of the country were confded to
the commission. they would be il the
latters demands were acceded to-
Turning then to his exposition of the
danger of bestowing upon the commits
sion the powers asked, he says:
mere exists a mucn closer community OF
interest between a railroad and the locali-
ties and industries upon 1t than Is ordi-
narily realized in discussion of these mat
ters. The only way railroad make
money is to perform transportation service,
and obtain the revenue therefor; but it
cannot perform the transportation sevice I'M
less there are passengers and property to
be transported. Passengers and property
will not be transported to or from a par
ticular locality unless the state of bust
ness at that locality warrants he
transportation. The greater the business,
the greater the demand for transportation
service, and consequently the greater the
railroads revenue. 1t is to the railroads
interest to develop as far as possible the
productive enterprises Of every
productive enterprises of every locality upon
its route. The greater the development the
greater outbound traffic the railroad secures
The greater the demand for the sections
products the more PROSPEROUS It's tsp, people
greater the inbound traffic. The railroad
therefore, Is united in interest with the
localities along It's line.
To give the commission the powers de-
manded would deprive every locality of the
opportunity. with the Evaporation of the
railroads, to develop new enterprises or
maintain those already in operation, In or
other railroads. EXCEPT NTH the sanction Of
the commission. bf e
This he illustrates by recent case,
with the locus Of which we are all ia
miliar, that Of 5Eau Claire board Of
trade against the Chicago, Milwaukee
& st. Paul Railway company:
1t seems that Winoqa. La Crosse, and
that the railroads extending westward
from Winona and La Crosse. but not reach
ing Eau Claire. had, in the interest Of
Winona and La Grosse.s and In their own
to the West as would encourage and develop
the lumber trade at Winona and La