Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-04-21
ROADS HARD HIT
Interstate Commerce Commission
Knocks Out Main Argument Of Rail
way Representatives Regarding
Right of Government to Fix prefer
entail Rates"


Washington, April 81. The inter-
state commerce commission has deliv-
cred solar pleXuS blow to the con-
tention of the railroad presidents be-
fore the senate interstate commerce
committee that under the constitution
1t would be Impossible for congress to
enact legislation which provided for
er basis than that of 80 much per
ton per mile"
Such Il policy, If adopted by con-
gess. would as has been we'll UNDER
stood here revolutionize the transport
tation business of the country and des-
troy the prosperity OF some cities while
upbuildlng others, and take away the
great natural advantages enjoyed by
certain cities like Chicago and New
York.
The commission, in an opinion given
to the interstate commerce committee
yesterday, held briefly as follows:
There is no constitutional objection
to the imposition of a reasonable rate
to all ports, irrespective of the question
of distance. The claim that IL the
government Is authorized to make
rates 1t must make them on the dis
lance basis to all ports is not justified
by the decisions of the supreme court
or by the opinions OF leading consti-
tutional lawyers. The government has
the right to make the same kind of
rate as Is made by the railroads"
The senate committee has called up
on the attorney general for an opinion
on the same question as that which
the commission answered. While the
lattcr's view has not the weight of that
of the attorney general, still its effect
is not discounted by the senator's.
Chairman Knapp Of the commission
explained the view which he and his
colleagues had adopted as follows:
THE question which was presente
to us for an opinion was whether the
so-called preference clause in the
constitution would prevent the allow
ance of differential rate. l don't
think SO. Among other things we
quoted various decisions Of the supreme
court EARLY in the history of the in
terstate commerce commission decis-
ion was made that under the act Great
ing it rail carriers could not make q
lower charge on import traffic than on
domestic traffic of the same character
moving from the same port to the
same interior destination. The supreme
court took a contrary view, holding the
act did not impose any such limitation:
that while from certain port there
was the same rate on import as on do.
nestle traffic from other ports the
rates on import traffic would not be
as much by one third as on domestic
traffic.
Assuming that the clause In the con.
stitution in question has no application
to internal freight rates, which is by
no means conceded, then the question
would arise, What adjustment Of rates
would avoid a preference of one port
over another? 1t might turn out that
uniform rate-that is, the same rate
without regard to distance-would
have the practical effect of giving one
port preference over another. If thu
rates are fairly adjusted as between
the different ports or different places
how can it be said that such rates eff
feet a preference of one port over am
other? 1t Isl one of the leading fea-
lures of the interstate commerce act
to secure equitable rates. When the
supreme court held. as it did, in the
case have referred to, there may have
been lower rates. on import traffic
than on domestic traffic from one port
and the same rates on both from am
other. 1t seems to me that holding
is inconsistent with the idea that no
preference clause in the constitution
would enforce the same rate on a mile
age basis from all ports.'