The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-24

.
Senator Washburn directed attention
to the discrimination IN favor Of wheat
as against -four, which is just now agi
! tatng the vast milling interests of Min
neapolis. He says the railroads should
give a. lower rate on manufactured; arti-
cles than on raw materials. The flour
industry Of Minneapolis, he estimates di-
rectly and Indirectly involves nearly so, 600
persons + AHA ..-.
The railroads should have a care how
they treat this population in constructing
their tariffs.
"If ever any great industry required
protection says the senator, Gin order
to survive, it is the milling industry of the
northwest. I do not mean tariff conces-
sions I mean that protection which can
be given only by the transportation COM
! panies."
Mr.. Days View of the 1. C. @.
MIR. DAY believes that the interstate
commerce commission was conceived in
ignorance. That something was neces-
sury to curb the greed of the railroads
and the rapacity Of shippers who would
name their own rates or combine to pun
ish the railroad that dared stand for It's
rights, he admits. But the interstate COM
MERGE commission, as constituted, falls
lamentably short. In other words, Mr..
Day does not believe that a few men, no
matter what their eminence as lawyers or
public men, can solve the biggest problem
that has ever arisen in the world OF bust
ness.
! While Mr.. Day did not say it IN so many
! words, he left the inference that the es-
| Establishment of the interstate commission
opened every avenue of fraud that human
! ingenuity could devise to defeat it's pur-
pose.
"You must maintain rates, but we deny
| you the right to take any of the ordinary
precautions to maintain them," in effect
says the commission, as Mr.. Day under
stands it, Said Mr.. Day:
II am averse to discussing this matter
which is too big for any one or one hun
| dred men in the world to dismiss with a
few general observations And I wish
particularly to emphasize that I speak of
! the commission itself, not of the men
who compose it. But call attention to
! the first commission, which had Judge
| Thomas M. Cooley at it's head. In his
report presented to congress in 1887 he
says:
Pooling or Consolidation.
The pooling system has done much to
maintain steadiness in rates but the man
ayers have not been able by means of 1t
to keep the rates up to former standards.
| It has done something, however, to check
the prevailing tendency to consolidation.
The motives to consolidation are dimin-
ished by any contrivance which removes
| obstacles to the interchange Of business
and increases the facilities and convent
| ences for uninterrupted commercial inter-
course
I'm the light of what is going on about
us in the way Of combinations Of railroad
and industrial interests, Judge Cooley s
observation is deeply significant" adds
Mr.. Day.
Continuing, Mr.. Day says:
From the publication Of that report the
| interstate commerce commission has known
| that the greatest possible aid to the main
tenance Of rates. the most effectual check
upon Determinations as between individuals
and localities, lay in the repeal of the anti
| pooling clause, yet such action has never
been recommended except when coupled with
a proposition to give the commission the
rate making power which would jsopardize
! the commercial interests of every community
| in the United States.
The Rate Making Power.
The interests Of the railroads and the pub
lie are identical, and are alike in this: Neither
can consent 10 test the rate-making power Of
| countless millions of.capital in the hands Of
inexperienced men who, whatever may be
| their capabilities in other lines Of endeavor,
are poorly equipped for directing the stu
pendous traffic Of 70,ooO00o people.
| The people should demand fair legisla-
| ton even If certain railroads, dismayed by
the disorder in which perpetual rate democrat
ization has plunged them. should turn to
orgress for relief.
The lawmakers should consider no schemes
| of questionable utility. knowledge is power
| in handling railroad problems as well as legal
or business propositions. and with all due
respect to the members Of the commission, I
do not. think they possess this knowledge
Again, do not believe the railroad interests
Of this country would object to a provision in
the law that pooling contracts should be ap-
proved by the commission, but that no pool
ling contract should have that approval that
contemplated or provided for advances in
rates. Also that advances dn rates under the
existing law could only be made with the
consent of the commission.
Under the pooling privilege there has never
been manifested any disposition TO advance