New-York tribune., 1905-01-13
iG RAILROADS OBJECT.
AGAINST RATE CONTROL.
PiesCs of Many Companies Er-
pressed by Samuel Spencer.

Washington Jan. 12.-Samuel Spencer. presi-
dent OF the Southern Railway. and authorized
to voice the sentiments of the New-York Cen
trsl the Erie. the Chicago Milwaukee and st.
Paul. the Northern Pacific. the Illinois Central,
the Delaware Lackawanna and Western. and
other great railroad companies spoke vigorously
to-day before the House Committee on Inter
state and Foreign Commerce against the Cooper
Qnarles bill. any proposition to authorize the
Interstate Commerce Commission to fix railway
rates. Mr. Spencer is the first direct and official
representative Of the railroads TO be heard by
the committee. and his testimony is regarded as
the keynote OF the opposition TO the rate fixing
by the government.
Mr.. Spencer said at the outset that 1t was
not his purpose TO discuss the subject in it's en-
tirety There were however. a number OF i'm
portant points which he wished 10 emphasize
The Interstate Commerce law and the commits
sion. he said. had been in operation eighteen
years Before this time the rebate, the
secret contract and discriminatory devices OF
various kinds were the rule. Now the reverse
is the case. Rates are substantially maintained
There IS no difference of opinion" continued
Mr.. Spencer, between the railroads OF the
country, Congress and the President on the sub
5ect that rebates wrong. We agree with the
language Of the President that the highways
equal terms. on that basis the railroad COM
panies are ready and anxious TO aid and CO
operate. But DO not think any additional leg
islation is necessary In order TO proceed against
that particular class Of abuses. II such legis-
lation does not appear &c Congress TO be neces-
sary, the railways OF the country will certainly
stand and have no hesitation in saying so. in
cooperation and aid 10 that end. That par
ticular phase Of regulation has already been
pronounced by the commission fully covered
by existing statutes II simply becomes a Ques-
ton OF enforcement OF the law. But the ques-
ton before you is not Of that character-it is
that Of the power 10 name a rate upon the part
OF the commission after complaint and hearing
1t has been claimed this VIII be a means Of
stopping rebates. This claim I have no hesi-
fancy in disputing. and viii give It attention
later"
COOPERATING WITH COMMISSION.
Asked as to the necessity for the proposed leg
tslation Mr.. Spencer answered by reviewing the
situation for the last eighteen years. About 80
per cent Of all the claims questions OF various
kinds which have been presented 10 the Inter
state Commerce Commission in that time have
been adjusted without formal hearing and deci-
sions on the part OF the commission. That" he
said. does not indicate either fight non
cooperation the part OF the railroads"
OF the remaining 10 per cent OF the work OF the
commission, scarcely per cent was the SUBJ
Ject Of litigation. Mr.. Spencer said the railroads
aoquiesced in four-ffths OF the decisions OF the
commission. 'Out OF the forty-three which went
TO litigation" he continued. twenty-five related
10 rates and IN twenty-five out OF the twenty
I've cases the decisions OF the commission were
reversed by the courts one case only was af-
frmed by the courts IN its entirety, while two
were partially confirmed and partially reversed >
These figures covered eighteen years and rail-
road mileage Of 10000 at the present time and
$4,000 miles at the beginning OF the period
named. docs this indicate the necessity for
legislation with respect to rates?" Mr.. Spencer
asked
He expressed the confidence Of the railway
world in the commission and said it justly
worthy of the respect Of the country. There was
only one feature OF the Quarles-Cooper bill which
lEe wished 10 discuss specifically. and that was
tho portion conferring power on the commission
20 substitute a rate for complained of as
unreasonable, after due hearing, said rate TO re-
main i'm effect subject 10 change only by the COM
mission by the courts on appeal by the rail-
roads. Mr.. Spencer denied that the commission
ever iecallv had such power. and said the courts
in ls.4 had prohibited the exercise of the power
by the commission. 1t is claimed" he con-
tlrued that this power would be weapon in
the hands Of the commission 10 prevent rebates
But rate fixed by the commission can be re-
bated or evaded just as easily as any other.
The use OF that TeaCOn II given the commission
would punish not the evader Of the rate but
the road which upheld the rate, as exercise of
the power would be 10 let the rate down TO the
lower figure, thus working hardship the
road making the less rate. but Furnishing the
road maintaining the regular rate
PROBLEM OF ADJUSTING RATES
The most important argument in behalf of the
proposition Mr., Spencer believed to be that such
a power would enable the commission to prevent
discrimination between localities. This question
Of adjusting rates between localities he said
was the most difficult and intricate OF all The
present adjustment the outgrowth of
natural competition. not only between localities
which had and would always exist, but between
railroads we'll. To disturb this adjustment or
10 begin it's disturbance, he maintained, would
not only be task so enormous that no state
uent could convey a comprehension Of it. but
would be impossible Of satisfactory completion
in the hands OF body with authority only to
take into consideration the one phase OF ad-
jusfing rates with reference TO their equaliza-
tion far the carrier was concerned, and
leaving out the question Of competition between
localities.
Mr.. Spencer will continue his testimony to-
morrow.
CAssATT AT THE WHITE HOUSE.