The Washington times., 1905-05-10

more. that method of regulating trade,
with us termed regulating commerce,
was abandoned and what ne Palitacai
economists call laissez faire was intro
duecd, This consists Of giving free play
TO competition OF markets and II ports
that is, the questions or supply ana de-
mand In the place and at the time when
the trade took place were 10 govern
IF, in the market on that day. there
is an oversurply of the material dealt
in, the price falls. II tomorrow In
demand for the commodity. the price
rises.
.@rhe question today. therefore is
whether Congress is to regulate com
1t or its deputies can tell so.000.o0o OF
people what Is to be at come future time
La fair price for thing which,
does not exist at the time the
law is cnacte5-transpGrta be-
tween several points-where transporta-
ton of that commodity may not exist
today: Or whether Congress is TO allow.
as 1t has allowed since the adoption of
among the several States.
we have had all sorts OF tariffs on
Imports from foreign countries. high and
low We have had them almost prohibf
tive and we have had them down almost
70 the verge of free trade quite as near
TO II at times as England has been at
other times.
Interstate Free Trade.
But in our country and among our
selves. among these States VIC have had
abs ,ltt free trade SO far, and II we are
to progress-I do not want to force my
opinions on others, but l do want To
express my own, and say 1t with all
modesty-I believe We must have abso-
lutte free trade among the several states.
without any trammels being put by the
regulation OF commerce through he fix-
ing of the price of commodities or OF
ser vices, and railway rreishts are COM
modities CT services.
''I must apologize for this, gentle.
men. l was unexpectedly led into IT.
AS many of you know. those who
know me personally, l have been In
this railroad business all my life and
may have imbibed u little enthusiasm
about il.
Taft's Rejoinder.
There was a hush of expectancy when
Mr.. Fish sat down. Arising slowly
from his chair Secretary Taft began
his rejoinder.
II did rot expect TO get into an in
| tTicate discussion on the subject OF
| rates This law, as has been decided
by the Supreme Court Of the United
| States, Is that first a commission and
| then the courts may decide whether g
particular rate is reasonable or un-
| reasonable. 1t has been also ruled that
such Is the common law.
I'm fixing that. in the mental process
| OF determining whether rate is rea.
sonahle or unreasonable, you have got
| to fix In your mind what is a maxi
mum rate. You cannot help 1T, II youl
mind is constituted as the ordinary
| mind is.
LAS | understand It, what is proposed
| only is that in litigated cases a com
mission shall be constituted that shall
| fix maximum rate. In other words
| the commission shall go through tbs
same process that Ii now goes through
| to fix what is unreasonable and simply
| say that for certain time that shall
| be the maximum rate.
| ut seems to me that the step there
from one to the other. actually ant
practically, is comparatively slight
What am strongly in favor. Of
| though. is that we shall have body
| that shall decide things and that these
| things shall be decided within reason
/ able time, finally by the courts.
II am not railroad man and / have
| not been a railroad man all my life
| but / have come into contact will
| railroad litigation and know something
| about the interstate commerce littga
| ton. ! know you began a case feu,
| years ago over an issue as to whether