The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-09-29
Richard 0lney on Railroad Rate Legislation.
 -s HIS STRONG PPosITIor
  Discusses sL, and Public Polio lnvolved. Former Sec ,<Ary of States Magazine Article voices Sentiments Held By Conservative wing of
 of Democracy.

| the conservative Wlnk OI tue DStio cratic party to W. J. Bryan's open let I ter to the President on railroad rate | Legislation is contained In an article | by Richard Oiney in the October num- | Der of The North American Review, published today. In what Is pracu- I cally his first public utterance in two years. Cievelands former Secretary or 1 State presents his final judgment against the proposed legislation in the l form of a brief. covering not only the 1 law, but the public policy involved in the agitation. The following are some of the salient features of Mir. Oiney's
 argument:
 ''The importance of the rate making power Is not to be considered simply in its relation to the carrier. The most important bearing of the power is upon the public interests the carrier serves. It is a matter of common Knowledge. of which the courts take cogntzance
 without proof, that tho great carriers of the present day are the railroads. It is equally a matter of common knowl-
 edge that the rates charged by the
 railroads affect, all classes of the conn munity, that they determine very Iarge- 1y the outcome of all private enter prises, and that upon them hinges onIy too often the material well-being, IT not the very existence, of towns ana cities and seaports and large sections
  exercise of which is fraught with such conseduences is not to be classed ie" xalIy or practically with the power of determining the "cup quality" or teas. The latter may well be dele- gated to an executive officer or board. But to delegate the former, the ultimate
 rate-maiing power for railroads, to such an officer or board would be to surrender by the Legislature Of one FsYn In discussing the effects of govern
 ment regulations upon the railroads. Mir olney says:
 Coyerument Control. 'sThe situation to be anticipated, then. is that raIIroads-private properties and representing private investments ag- | rteeat{nw billions of doilars@-wtif hiiti l Themselves controlled In the vital matter of their charges. not by their private owners. but by two public | boards--one representative of local ih- terests, and the other of national m terest. and both antagonistic to the in terests of the private owners con- cerned. The two goards will aim at
 the lowest possible rates. each in oe-
 half of the particular business under
 its charge: and will, therefore De Tn constant rivalry with each other In the endeavor to extort from the carrier the best service at the smallest cost. Un-
 der these conditions, anything hKe
 skiIlful, just, reasonable or staple
 rate-making becomes impossible situation is created intoIeraoie alke 1o fine carriers and to the public and the sure outcome-unless the whole scheme
 og Government rate-making be aban- Sonedis Government ownership.
 "c.overnment ownership of all rail- rosds Is obviously the goal to which some of the Government rate makeIs are striving, while others, if not vel coming 1t and not working for it, pro fess not to fear 1t and claim that 1t would at all events be an improvements unon the present status. Both point to extatinz chances of Government own ershin of railroads. the one claiming that the results to the public are dls- tinctlv favorable; the other that they are at least not as detrimental as is sometimes declared.
 "put when Government ownership is serIousIy considered our dual political svsteu, is at once seen to present prob Ienos of the gravest character. The sew and comparatively unimportant railroads that are wholly intra-state may be properly ignored. Every rail- road of consequence Is engaged In both kinds of transportation--in transporta- tJon that begins and ends in a single
 
 havond State lines. Hence, if Govern r1ent ownership of railroads be regard eS as an inevitable sequence of Gov ernment rate making, the first question ia. which Government is 1t that is to own the railroads-the State or the United States?
 Not Only the Railroads.
 "The significance and the importance If inc inquiry are apparent If we re- member that the railroad is only one species of highway and that what Is true of railroads must be true of ordi- nary highways. The Jurisdiction of the National Government must be the same in both cases. If 1t Is competent for the National Government under the commerce clause to own and operate all the great railroads of the country If must be also competent for it to own and control and operate all the great highways of the country.
 "Is it by any possibility true that the National Government has been granted any such powers-that as respects every road or street in the country which is a link in interstate communi- cation-the National Government may at its option take complete possession of the control, may direct the mode of it's construction. it's grades, the sort of vehicles by which 1t may be used-may, in short. assume its entire management 
 details. Nothing could be more revo- lutionary in practice, nothing more contradictory of the views customarily held. It Is necessary to consider most carefully, therefore, whether the pow CTS in question are actually conferred on the National Government, it being conceded, as 1t must be, that the power can be deduced, if at all. only from the commerce clause of the Constitution"
 In summing up the opposition to the proposed legislation. Mir. Olney reaches the following conclusions:
 ours is a government. both State and National. by political parties and to political rate making for railroads rate-making by politicians animated by partisan motives and working for par tisan ends-the objections of economic and business character and on the score of public policy generally are as nb- vious as they should prove insuperable
 The purpose of the present paper is to point out that. beside such objee- tions. the railroad rate making hv the