The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-03

init reasonable agreements of that kind.
under proper supervision. Is the best way
or Keeping alive what competition Is sthl
left The traffic association limits ma
terially but does not eXtinguish compeu-
ton. The pooling contract limits II stu
further, but something is left. Unity OF
ownership. or community Of interest. abso-
lutely ~extinguishes it. Is it not better TO
reasonably limit than il Is TO utterly de-
stroy?
1T is vastly to its credit that one power
full company in the East has taken an open
stand for the amendment Of the Interstate
law and has admitted mat there
can be no proper revision or that law unul
some measure of protection Il accorded 10
the public. When other railway lines take
the position which the Pennsylvania mas,
which, instead of asserting that the law IN
its present form is ample, they concede Its
lne1ectiVeness, when they are willing 10
submit TO intelligent discussion the Ques-
lions involved, they will find the business
men or this country ready TO consider can
dldly these issues and 10 agree upon some
measure which will be just to them and
just TO the public.
while many thoughtful men hold the
contrary view, my own opinion is that so
long as railways are operated by private
capital justice requires that in the first IN
stance the establishment of the rate should
rest with them. The carrier should be al
lowed TO say what conditions il will meet,
what traffic il will develop: but when once
its rates have been put in effect the gov
eminent must determine as a measure OF
self-protection whether those rates are just
and reasonable.
This has been stigmatized as an attempt
TO confer autocratic power upon the Inter
state-cOmmerce Commission. Apparently
the government can best exercise that func-
ton through some commission. and the
InterState-commerce Commission il the
body now standing for railway regulation.
That body has never suggested that any
power should be conferred upon II which
was not subject in all cases TO review in
the federal courts and finally i'm the Su-
preme Court of the United States. Person
ally / have for a long time insisted that
these questions could only be properly
dealt with by the creation of a new and
special tribunal for that purpose.
1T is earnestly insisted that there is to-
day no complaint, no cause for the exer-
else of this function by the government.
at the present time no authority to correct
those wrongs, and this fact is well under
stood by the public.
The railway rate is property. When you
NEEDLE with that rate you deal with pri-
vate property. A slight change in that rate
is of great consequence 10 the railway and
of equal consequence to the public. In all
attempts TO regulate that rate the great
est caution must be observed. Every safe
guard must be used which can insure a fair
and just determination TO all parties; but
finally, by some means and In some way.
the charges which the railways of this
land impose for the transportation of per-
sons and of property must be subjected TO
public supervision. In nc other way can
those conditions which confront us be
met. You cannot have competition, and you
must put something in the place of il.