Arizona republican., 1902-02-15
PROPOSED LAWS
 FOR RAILROADS
The Two Interstate Com merce Bills Now Before
 Congress
An hnalysis by a Representative Of the Shippers, of the Elkins Bill. The Points of Difference From Corliss Measure

Washington. Feb. 14.-The bill pre- pared by the executive committee of the interstate commerce law conVen- ton proposing amendments to the in terstGte commerce act is now before both branches of congress. It was offered in the senate during the past week by Senator Nelson of Minnesota. and was presented in the house early in January by Representative Corliss of Michigan The EllSins bill repre- senting the railroad ideas on the sub ject was also introduced in the senate during the past week. The introduc- ton of this measure and the Nelson Horliss bill bears out predictions re- gently made that tine broad minded transportation interests of the United States would join with the Clnn,eT- cial interests in seeking legislation tu correct the disastrous conditions eX- is ding under the present impoIent law. intoleru5le to carrier and shipper alike.
 MT Frank Barry Of Milwaukee. sec retary of the League of National ;ss- sociatious. who has charge or the shippers cause here. gives the follow ing comparative analysis of the Elkins bill and the Nelslu-Corliss bill:
 The Elkins bill limits. the time
 within which the order or the commis-
 sion snail be effective to one year iu- stead of two. as in our bill. and omits the provision giving the commission power to extend it's decisions. which is clearly necessary for proper protec- ton of the public. The EIsins bill pro vides that an order of the commission shall be suspended pending proceeding
 in review in court Unless ordered ] otherwise. The Nelson Corliss bill pro vides that the filing by the carrier of 9 { petition for review shall of itself sUs-
 pend the order for thirty days, and that the court may further suspend such order if found to be based UpoH 1 error of law or unjust or unreasonable upon the facts. We maintain that 1t
 would he Unwise to suspend the com
 missions orders during review unless good cause shall appear.
 The Elkins bill provides that the coUrt shall hear the case upon the . record bcfore the commission and ysuch additional .testiuons as the court
 may decide necessary shall be tGzeH, while OUT bill provides that all adii-
 tional testimony slah be taken by. the ! commission under tiie direction or the : count. While this w2y appear 70 be
 g slight difference it IS l vital one
 The Elitins bill apparently makes
 the commission the defendant in pro ! cecdin2s for the review or its orders.
 Our bill makes the United States the
 defendant. which is the more apprO- pr-atc provision. The commission
 should not be required to appear ia
 ooust to defend its orders. and the record in the ease should speak for
 itsclI The Elkins bill authorizes the
 carriers to contract for division oc
 their traffic oT carniEge, CT in other
 words. 10 pool This section is q rad i-al railroad provision. While probably
 90 per cent of the shippers of this country would be willing that the rail
 roads might enter into traffic agree
 ulcuts. subject to disapproval of the
 commission. ] believe that there are
 very few shippers who would be willing
 Co have this section enacted. repeal ing. as it does. the anti-pooling provis- ion Of the act and the antitrust law SD | f2r aS it affects railroads.
 Our bill is silent upon the question of traffic agreements. Without going ! into the merits of the pooling ques-
 ten. it may be said that if pooling IS ] permitted, an order of the commission anuuiling the contract or making 1 changes in rates or practices there
 under should be final and conclusive. 1 The Ell,ins bin provides for a mini mum fine of $1,0O0. which. I think. it i must be conceded. is too small a pen
 alty. Our bill provides for a minimum penalty of S5. 5.C0O. which is small enough | to insure the proper observance of the l law"