The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-04-21

IL is not without it's dangers Tbs life oil
the masses In our great cities is less pure,
their thoughts less wholesome, their ac
lions more spasmodic than that OF tho
masses in the country. II any grea, up
htaval overtake~ this Nation Il will <.igi-
nate In the cities.
"The rniform tendency of the present
condition OF rates is 10 build up tho city
at the expense Of the country, for the
reason that the rate, the rebate, the COM
cossion of every sort, is always IN favor
OF the city where competition is sharp and
against the country where competition Is
less. and with tbs result that industries
of all kinds are being forced out OF the
country and out OF the smaller towns and
Into the great centers of activity This
Is not for The National good The small
individual should enjoy exactly the same
privileges with the great shipper and the
small community ordinarily the same as
the great community.
"Manifestly, transportation to the pub
lie is thing OF such transcendent inn
portance TO the public at largo that II
should be subject TO public regula lion.
But what warrant Is there f1r this2 As a
member OF the senate committee recently
said. Why should a commission fix the
price of railway transportation more than
the price OF wool or OF live Stoke
"Transportation by railway. whether 1t
be called a service or n commodity Is IN
Its nature quasi public, The railway Is
in measure public servant II this
were not so 1t never could have been con-
strnctsd and could not be operated When
the legislature confers upon the railway
these extra 3 i"ery powers. giving IL the
rlght to appropriate to It's use the property
OF private individuals against their will
It may rhine the conditions under
which its railroad when constructed shall
be operated. II may fix the rates OF fare
say that those rates shall be the same to
all individuals and they shall be reason
ably adjusted between all communities.
This may be done upon the further
&, ound that when any service comes 10 be
rendered under such circumstances as to
he in manner Il public service, the pub
li' may Ia self-protection regulate its
eNcrcise. There is no city or town Of con-
siderable sac In the United States which
does rot determine its cab fare and th4
farce OF It's street railways In some
Sla.os there are commissions to determine
the price OF electric Hight and gas. The
submne court of the United States has
ruled that the Legislature may nix the price
a, which elevators constructed and oper-
ats by privaas capital shall receive grain
Tor storage So IL the case of railroad
transportation. the most important OF all.
the state mas int rfere In self protection
1t should be noted that this power Is
possessed by the several States in case
OF transportation which is wholly WITHIN
the State, but that with reference to trans
portation which passes from one Stato to
another or from the, Umted States
foreign country, the National government
alone can act. Most transportation In our
country is Interstate, and from this 1t fol-
lows that the National government is the
ONLY authority which can deal effectively
with that question.
The RIGHT OF the government to regulate
railway rates has been repeatedly qfdrmal
by courts of last resort both State and
National
The first attempt upon the part Of con-
gress In this direction was in 1887 when
the interstate COMMERCE act was passed.
The first three sections Of that act declare
that all rates shall be reasonable. that
they snail work no preference between
commodity or loeality.and that every per
son shall enjoy the same rate The bal
ance OF the act is devoted to providing ma
chinery for the enforcement OF these prin-
ciples. The principles are universally ad-
mitted to be right; the machinery upon
trial has broken down.
How shall the benefit of these princip' es
be secured TO the public? Why not leave
it to the courts2 There are two cont-oli-
ing REASONS one of law and one OF policy.
Il The court has no power to apply the
only effective remedy
Damages afford no practical relief for
unreasonable rates. The Kansas farmer
sells his corn TO the middle man, who
ships it TO market The middle man pays
the freight rate and Is therefore the only
person who could sue TO recover an excess.
But the middle man has bought the grain
upon the basis OF the freight rate. II
ha frrhF tn fyh ba s,ptf
which is paid the farmer was too low. The
farmer is the one who lost by the transaG-
I ton, but the farmer can maintain no suit.
! IL might be the consumer instead OF fns
producer who has suffered, but in this case.
/ TO he has no right OF action. Broadly
Speaking, while there are many exceptions
he party who suffers from an unTe lsonabie
rate can not maintain an action for dam
ages.
This Is even more SO in case Of dlscrim-
ination or undue preference. What dam
ages can a community or the members Of
a community obtain whose existence. even
has been snufied out by a rate discrimna
ton? The only practical remedy in al
these cases looks not TO the past but tc
the future. the wrong rate must be male
right. This does not exact justice 70 al
parties and nothing else can. While un-
reasonable and discriminating rates
everywhere abound It may be doubted n
a single judgment in damages mas ever
been entered on that account
But the United States supreme court ha.
held that the liking Of a rate Tor the futur,
is an administrative junction which ear
not be delegated 70 a Federal court, hu
which must be exercised by congress itsel
or by a commission.
20 If courts could be vested with tn
necessary power. who is to act as tn
plainHn? The grain rate may be matte
OF hundreds OF thousands Of dollars to thl
State OF Texas, but OF comparatively sinai
amount to any one individual Can an.
one person afford 70 rvise and oprosecnt
that question for the benefit OF all? ca,
you array the little farm or the littl
mill against the millions OF dollars whiel
are opposed to IL? In many cases thu
shipper would not dare to begin proceed
lngs. Before they could be concluded n
would have been forced out OF existenoe
THE length Of time required would b
an lnsuperabie objection. IL has taker
on the average nearly four years to OBJ
tain final decision in the courts upoi
these questions.
Courts are powerless 70 deal with thi
subject There must be an expert com
mission OF some Lind which can receiy
and hear these complaints without In,
delay and expense Of the law and whicl
has power when Il finds wrong 20 max
! 81 right.
Just this was undoubtedly The purpos
4 . "a L. " a