The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-02-12
THAT COMPROMISE.
Discussion of the Railroad Commii
siOn's Recent Action.

stOn's Recent Action.
To the Editor of The Post
With no other purpose than to register
protest. which i believe will become
almost universal when the people are fully
informed on the merits OF the railroad
and commission compromise to briefly give
understanding ana which appear to mo
lead inevitably to this adverse criticism.
From the time when the railroad COM
mission first became operative until now
there has been no clear basis of pro-
cedure for determination of what the
railroads were justly entitled to earn in
the matter of rates, and to remove this
difficulty and to arrive at some method
or basis for rational conclusion has been
the constant effort of the commission.
The people, however, have never heen
fully informed; in fact, have been often
deceived rather than enlightened by par
tisan politicians, OF the difficulties along
this line, and in the famous injunction
proceedings, upon which decision was rem
dered in 1894, the people generally were
led to believe that the commission then
won complete victory and the power to
establish arbitrary rates, when. as mat
ter of fact, it only won the right to exist
ject to tho right Of the railroads to contest
them when they were deemed unreasonable
and the right of a restraining order, pend
ing a final decision of their enforcement
1t was encroachment upon what the roads
deemed unreasonable rates that caused tine
commissions last tariff TO be contested
by the roads, and which led to the recent
Mccormick decision whereby the commits
sion was restrained from further enforce
ment of It's rates. Nine roads, mainly
trunk lines were parties to this suit.
Il developed early during the trial that
the question of reasonable, or unreason-
able, rates was question detcrminable
solely upon what was conceived, or would
finally be determined, to be the true value
of railroad. The roads commended in
ferentially. II not specifically. that the real
value of their roads was the full amount
for which they were capitalized in stocks
and bonds, such amount being twice, anu
in some cases, three times the valuation
placed upon them by the commission
determined by expert testimony as being
the cost of their complete duplication 1t
Is apparent that rates that would be reas-
enable on one of these valuations would
he wholly unreasonable on the other. That
the court granted the restraining order
IL proof that the commission contention
that the cost OF duplicating the foads
was lust measure OF their value. was not
SO regarded by the court. Thus the bone
of contention upon which devolved final
settlement of this question hinged upon
the, decision of a court OF last resort DIS
10 what constituted the real pr true value
Of railroad.
at issue. II the supreme court
should decide that the real or true value
Of a railroad is to be determined like the
value of all other physical property--the
cost of its duplication wholly ana conf
the question OF just rates
will be matter as easily determined as
figuring the interest on written instrr-
,nent But strange 10 say-~hen upon a
-ettlement OF this question alone devolyeE,
not only a determination of whether the
nsople can hope for relief from oppressive
rates from the United States supreme court.
hut also the future uscfulness OF the com
the oYertures OF fo-calieu
merchants" and business Enterprises
he commission is influenced TO enter into
negotiations OF compromise with the roads
and 10 enter into an agreement IN which
he roads so Ear from accepting tho tarih
cbed,iIe the commission sought to enforce.
and out OF which grew the present litisa-
ion. demands something like per cent
,dvance on tariffs heretofore in force under
he commission.
pad as is this state of Affairs. and as
,eInless as II shows the commission to be.
N that II recedes from it's contention be-
ere Anal decision is had. the worst feat
IRE of all however. Is that ths <ssmpro-
ntse makes final decision On the vital
question imoossible, because OF dismissal
y litigation
vbv has the commission acted thus In
he face Of these facts? Upon what does II
,rcprse to base the PRONUNCIATION OF rates
= Inc future? Why. toc, have the rail-
.oads sought this comnronise almnst frrm
no very moment OF the courts decision,
.i,hrugh that decision WIS IN their favor?
rbese are quegtinns the people want an
ve-ee. The commission has spent time
nd money for expert engineers 70 compute
no cnst OF Duplicating every road In the
i,ata as a basis FOR rate ma''rg Yet by
III compromise II evndes tho only OPP
ortunity II has had. for the supreme court
1 nasg upon it's work in determining
,hatbsr the ynlue OF a railroad shall be
nus determined. and IL not. why not?
vhen viii the commission ever know, II
his motley Of evasion is 10 continue. what /
/, ,he real value OF railroad, and until II /
oes know this. upon what basis can II |
ornnute rates with any sembiEnce OF jus
Ires These are questions many people viii |
amt answered
Railroad systems, traffic associations and !
!, kinds OF combines arc getting too big
hold on the country for the people 70 be