The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1902-12-28
HINES CRIT|C|SES
THE COMMISSION
Says the Body is Not an I'M
partial Tribunal
DISCUSSES RECENT PLEA
Says They Have Asked for More
Power, When The Have Not AS
serted What Power They Now
Have-TaIks of Rates.
DISCUSSES RECENT PLEA

Philadelphia, December 27.-At the Sec
ond days session of the fifteenth annual
meeting of the American Economic asso-
citation here today, Walker D. Hines, first
vice-president of the Louisville and Nash
vile railroad company, made the principal
speech. He sharply criticised the
Interstate Commerce commission and
in referring to its recent plea to
congress for more power he said 1t had
power enough already He said the COM
mission was not impartial as the frequent
overrulings of it's decisions by the court
showed.
Mr.. Hines Speech.
Following is an extract of his address:
The agitation by the Interstate Com
merce commission for the rate making
power began in 1897 when the Supreme
court decided the maximum rate case.
In that case the commission had fixed
rates, which, if enforced, would have
materially reduced rates on practically
all southbound business east of the Mis-
sissippi river. The Supreme court showed
clearly that congress had not given the
commission this necessarily unlimited
and extremely important power, but 1t
pointed out that the commission did have
important functions designed to secure
both reasonableness and equality of rates.
The commission criticized the Supreme
court, denied the courts statements and
has made the erroneous impression that it
Is now powerless and also that the rate
making power would prevent secret rate
cutting. The proposed power would nee
essarily be free from any substantial
abandonment of the method of regulation
provided by congress-, which despite all
assertion to the contrary, has never been
proved insufficient. Any dissatisfaction is
due to shortcomings of the commission
rather than to defects in the law.
Is Not Impartial.
The Interstate Commerce commission
is neither an expert nor an impartial
tribunal, as is proved by it's decisions
and the actions of the courts upon them.
1t is unnecessary, unwise and unjust to
give such a tribunal practically final
power over the private capital invested
in railroads. 1T present the mistakes of
the railroads can be adequately correct
ed by the courts; under the proposed
methods, the mistakes of the commission
could not be corrected anywhere.
The claim that low rates are due to
railroad competition, and as such COM
petition is disappearing, the power to re-
duce rates should be given to the COM
mission is fallacious, because the gen.
orally low basis of rates is due to the
competition between markets and pro-
ducts and to the fact that economical
railroad management necessitates con-
stantly increasing the volume of traffic
and these conditions are bound to con-
tinue
Reduction of Rates.
Some members of the commission argue
that the rates ought to be reduced but
they have not exercised the authority
they have to put that view into effect.
However, despite the increase in volume
of traffic and efficiency of machinery,
railroad net earnings are diminishing and
the cost per ton per mile is increasing.
Although traffic conditions are not like
ly to permit increased returns, still as
an abstract proposition the railroads I'M
doubtedly have the right to share in the
general prosperity, when all other serv-
ices and commodities increase in price.
The railroads of this country are large
ly responsible for its Industrial and COM
mercial supremacy. Self-interests will I'M
doubtedly prompt them to do everything
in their power to maintain that suprem-
acy. Certainly the material welfare of
the country has not depended in the
past upon rate making by the commits
sion and it cannot be prompted thereby
iii the future.