The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-02-08
MUsr frND 4 COALITION GEonnn

MUST FIND 4 COMMON GROUND.
The discussion evoked by the introduce
ton of the respective measures of Sena-
tors EIkins and Nelson amendatory of the
| interstate commerce law must result ad-
! Vantageously to shippers and carriers
| alike It will at least dissipate the dense
| ignorance and foolish prejud ce so
prevalent on the general subject Of rail-
read traffic, and create the public senti-
ment necessary to placing the subject OF
| the relations of the general government
| and the interstate commerce carriers on
an intelligent basis.
I some provision such as that embodied
in Senator Elkins' bill permitting pool -ng
| by the railroads is a first requirement 70
| the satisfactory adjustment Of the ques-
| lions in dispute The only objection
| which railroad ecoii6mists have ever been
able to distinguish to the allowance OF
| pooling arises from the fact that the ship
| ping public have generally been kept in
| ignorance of the details Of the pooling
arrangement and have accordingly will
ingly accepted the view of such agree
ments least creditable. and. often. least
| Just, to the railroads.
The most important issue now in en-
| istence between the shippers and the car
! riers is the one Of the extent and char
| acter of the powers with which the in
teIstate commerce commission should be
| Invested. In the consideration CT this we
can dismiss the claim put forward on be-
half of the commission, that it is a body
composed of high minded men, of expert
| knowledge of the subjects which they
| have to deal with, and that they are not
| likely to abuse the great power with
| which they seek to be invested. Giving
! them all the credit they can claim in
| these directions, the same argument APP
! plies against giving them plenary powers
which are being advanced now against
the community Of interest plan among
the carriers. The power to control rates
absolutely is bad no matter by which IN
| terest exercised
1t is safe to say that where a given
rate or classification has. been. in opera
| ton for a continued period, and tne traf
| tic has lcng adjusted itself thereto, it
would be unjust to the railroads to invest
| any administrative public body whatever.
| even after the fullest hearing with the
| power to make radical change therein
without the concurrence of the courts be-
ing first obtained. The interstate COM
| mission may be regarded as quite as
well able to protect itself and the pub
| lie through the courts as the carriers are
to protect themselves. The courts are
open to both alike. The claim of the
commission that the railroad lawyers are
able to defeat the ends of justice through
legal delays is an idle claim. 1t viii not
impress anyone who knows anything of
the remedies which are open both to the
public and the carriers through those
tribunals
There are undoubtedly a number of in
stances in which it would be eminently
proper to give the commission the power
to change a given rate or classification
ard leave the carriers to resort to
the courts i'll the, first instance. Neither
| the carriers nor the commission should
be allowed to change established rates at
will
An instance cited by the commission in
which it argues that it should have been
given the right to make the change de-
manded without recourse to the courts Is
that of prevailing grain rates to Mime
apolis and Milwaukee respectively from
points in Minnesota. Iowa and South pa
kota. The commission ordered a reduc-
ton which it thought Just as between the
two cities. The railroads put in force a
tariff which only partially recognized the
commissions ideas of justice The argu-
ment of the commission is that tne car
riers should have been obliged forthwith
to put in force its tariff without the -
tervention of the courts.
The illustration strikes us as being
N--O "iioI ullIoi IuIldIe IOf the COnten-
lions of the commission The exercise
of power which is sought in that case
might well result in irreparable injury
to the vast grain and Touring interests
of Minneapolis and have disturbed the
markets to such an extent as to inAct
! great local and individual injustice. We
cannot assume, as the commission does
| in that case. that the railroads had
any selfish interests to advance by re-
fusing to do just as the commission
thought they ought to do, or in doing as
they did. The case cited is clearly one
IN which the commission ought not to
be allowed to issue an Imperative order
without giving not only the railroads
but the commercial interests of Mime
apolis and of the communities in the
states mentioned the aRpIest opportunity
to have their rights adiudicated upon by
the courts before action was taken. and
not even then without the approval of thA
courts The Chamber of Commerce If