The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-24

A railway sharooWnsr On New Mothodl
q nate neHulation.

To the EDIToR or TIE sUN-SiT! You
have made Il plalnby your treatment OF the
railway rate problem that all the railways
have come into existence under a contract
With tho State which gave birth TO the
charters that the directors Of the road shall
have the Right aud power 10 establish and
collect rates for service, provided the rates
arc reasonable and alike for everybody.
ThoOo contracts with the State are, you
have shown, vahdoontTaots, which Congress
and the courts should protest
You have also made IL clear that thirty
or forty years ago some Of the railways
erred by claiming that those contracts had
ousted the State from any control whatsoever
over rates. You have proved that the
courts rightly decided that railway direo-
tors had power 10 mako only reasonable
rates, and that the State could By appealing
10 the courts prevent the exaOtton OF un-
reasonable rates, and the railways could
In like manner by going to the courts stop
the State from enforcing conhscatory rates.
Thus IL has come TO pass that the railways
have absolute power to Ak and collect
reasonable rates and that only the courts
can, on anybody's complaint, decide finally
whether or not a rate Is reasonable.
Neither Congress nor State Legislature
can deprive either railway directors or the
courts Of suoh rights and powers.
Why, then, does the President advise
Congress to intervene by giving TO the Inter
state Commerce CommisEion power to hx
rates till the judicial power shall interposei
It must be either because he thinks the
railway directors have not acted as em-
powered by law or because, II the directors
have acted as q board, the rates are un-
reasonable and unlawful, and therefore
the commission should be authorized by
Congress TO stop the inhiotion-
You have demonstrated the injustice Of
giving such power 10 the commission, unless
Congress shall opsn a way by which the
reasonableness Of the rates fixed by the
railway can be quickly presented to the
final arbiteT, which Il theSupreme Court,
1t Is said, In reply, that the railway rates
are illegal because they haven been In fact
fixed by a vote Of the directors, as the char
tors and the Law require, but have been h1sd
by what is described a. q trafic department
In each railway.
Is that saying true, or Is Il falsei
In q moro general form, this is the ques-
don:
The President shirms that the railway
directors hagrantly disobey the law, not
only by making rebates and unjust dis
elimination, but by permitting unreason-
able rates to be fIed by tTafho agents and
enforced on shippers.
It Is incredible that oWners Of . majority
Of the shares Of each Of our interstate rail-
ways wish their directors or agents to do
what President Roosevelt declares they are
doing.
There e error somewhere
Do the shareowners plead guilty 70 the
Roosevelt indiotmentl
II they do not, then what is the sxplana-
toni
The issue raised by the President is q
very dangerous one for railway Investments
-shareowners and Landowners alike. II It Is
a false issue, the shareowners and directors
Of the inculpated roads should frankly
meet 1t in their own persons. and not leave
IL TO be encountered by their agents, who |
may or may not be unpopular in Congress-
SHARKoWNHR,