The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1903-01-02

~ IAit - ~ = RtiNdiH pr6ra-s
they should be allowed 10 ma psoperty
own rates In the first Instance. ~ Their
eminent interfering only when the gov
SO made are unjust. IN the discharge es
court. 1t should not sit merely : not a
the complainant and the deferdaDn near
decide the Issue. and
The really difficult question is. hor,
the orders of such a commission snail
vised and enforced? The railSNav pe te-
property. The railway Industry iia'e is
most important u his country. To u 1ne
hamper the industry would be both wasaanaly
and unwisc. y commission of ~ mtohg
indicated would be to a degree a tiartf sort
body. whose orders not To be enl
While courts canno be given antSa..
to prescribe a rate for the futnrs. o.ttity
have authority to determine whetha, '.ey
and hence tie natural suggestion 10 ape,
railways should be allowed to revia, mat
orders OF a commission In the lad me
courts. To this there are many ohjectionrssi
be decided upon precedent, or by Inc 10
OF testimony. They are traffic as, way
for the most part requiring for their ~
Outstanding and determination EN- IN.
knowledge in a high degree. This tenpett
edge the federal judges do not , Ia"wl,
possess in any degree. The time oTfHai!y
courts Is fully occupied with other M, me
ters. If for no other reason the in M =
methcd OF procedure would be yafa mat
son against its adoption. 'ea-
For these reasons it has for some fin.
seemed TO me hat we must create = eae
ciai tribunal, in the nature OF a conn., ape.
court, which should be charged with re
duty of reviewing and enforcing the ord ~
OF a commission, from which appea, ,THrea!ss
questions OF law. and perhaps thosap o VI
fact, should lie to the supreme cnrr. q
the United States. The members of srS y
tribunal would be appointed for life sra
-..-.il ,Iaraynra y,nSAnr. 49,. Gnu
of a court. They would not come In ,Sirs:aaa
contact with the parties In the sarne rnah
that a commission does. and hence v,o,,i5s
be remove from those influences Of y
Quasi-personsl nature. They would s.
responsible to public opinion for the n Va,
er discharge of their duties. After ohH
they would speedily become an evnar.,
body, even more familiar with the matters
at issue than a commission itself 40
would be able to act intelligently any
promptly. NH
Such a tribunal would not be oo,s,,,
to reviewing and enforcing the order ~
u commission, even though its duties y~ces
limited to the regulation of interstate rsil
ways. 1t happens continually thai mo- ".-
tiers arise which require the application NJ
immediate relief. which can only saf.Tn
and properly be given through the s',r:I
mary process of a court. 1t Is oTi1s
probable, too, that such a court nigh h.
available in dealing with monopoly in
than railway transportation.
The address by Mr.. Hines. frs, v,co
president of the Louisville and Mash.
vile Railroad company, was entitla6
Legislative Regulation of Railway
Rates n was in part as follows.
Mr.. Hines Address.
Agitation by the interstate ommerc
commission for rate making power beran
In 1871, when the supreme court decided
the maximum rate case. In that the com
mission had fixed rates which, # IN
forced. would ave materially red,ca5
rates on practically all %southbound hn me
ness east of the Mississippi river. The
supreme court showed clearly that con.
Gcess had not given the commission tEis
necessarily unlimited and extremely i'm.
portant power, but 1t pointed out that tho
commission did have important functions
designed to secure both reasonableness
and equality of rates.
The commission criticised the supreme
court, denied the courts statements and
mas mace erroneous impressions thar It
is now poweriess, and also that the rate
making would prevent secret rate
cutting. The proposed power would nee.
essarily be free from any substantial judi
abandonment OF the method of regulation
provided by congress-, which, despite all
assertions 10 the contrary, has never
been proved Insufficient. Any dissatis-
faction is due TO the SHORTCOMINGS OF The
! commission rather than to defects In the
law.
mat the interstate commerce commits
sion Is neither an expert nor impartial
tribunal Is proved by its decisions, and
action Of the courts upon them. 1t Is
unnecessary unwise and unjust to give ?
such a tribunal practically final power
over private capital invested in railroads.
AT present the mistakes of the railroads
can be adequately corrected in the courts,
but the mistakes OF the commission could
Eot be corrected anywhere.
The claim that low rates are due to rail-
0 a competition. and that as such COM
petition Is disappearing, power TO reduce
rates should be given to the commission
Is fallacious, because the generally low
basis of rates is due TO competition be-
tween markets n between products, and
to the fact that economical railroad man
agemcnt necessitates a constantly H.
credSing volume of traffic, and these con-
ditiCns are bound to continue. Some
members of the commission argue rates
ought to be reduced, but they have not
exercised the authority they have TO put
tllat view into effect. However. despite
increase in volume of traffic and in e-
earnings are diminishing and the cost per
ton per mile is increasing. Although
traffic conditions are not likely to permit
of Increasing returns, still as an abstract
proposition the railroads undoubtedly
have a right to a share in the genera!
( prosperity when all other services anu
commodities increase In price.
3 The railroads OF this country are large
lT responsible for its industrial and Ioi-
n!erC;al supremacy. Self interest VIII IN
Goubtedly prompt them to do everything
in their power to maintain that supTeht,,
acy. Certainly the material welfare o..
The country has not depended in@tAe pas;
upon rate making by the commission, ana
1t cannot be promoted thereby III the iu'
tire.