The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-05-24

SANAS SSNAS
q judicial act, st follows necessarily that,
under our scneme OF government, con-
gress has not the right to vest the power
IN the courts, either by comforting original
or appellate jurisdiction over the sub
ject," 1t may well be questioned whether
1T Is advisable or expedient to provide a
special court. as provided in the Esch-
Townsend bill, for the review of cases in
which a rate has been substituted by the
commission for one found to be in conflict
with the requirement Of the statute.
The carrier has ample recourse in the
existing courts in case Of the commission
having required the substitution of rate
that the carrier deems to be non-com-
pensatory, and there seems to be no occa-
sion for compl1cating the main question
OF the establishment Of an additional
court.
At all events, the latter question can
be safely left to future consideration with
the light Of experience under operation
OF the amendment Of the law proposed
Operation Automatic.
In my humble opinion, its operation
VIII be found to be to large extent auto
matte. The mere existence of the power
proposed will exert restraining inf1u-
ence upon the carrier, resulting in the
prevention of the imposition of rates that
cannot be successfully defended in case
OF being challenged before the commits
sion; and consequently cases brought be-
fore the courts under the present law
as is we'll known, have been brought on
the ground that the commission in its
action has exceeded the powers conferred
upon it by lazy. - @,... ,.... ls.
The opinion of the attorney general
a ONT
the proposition made by representatives
Of the railway interests, which seems tc
have found some favor with members OF
the senate committee conducting the
present hearing, that the question Of the
reasonableness Of a rate complained of be
submitted to the courts for determine
ton, instead of to the commission, as now
provided. This would simply be trans
ferring the impotency Of the commission
under the existing law to the courts, as
the latter cannot be empowered to fix g
rate for the future to take the place Of
one found to be unjust, and consequently
would be unable to apply the only practi.
cable remedy for the wrong found to- ex.
fst This, as will readily be seen, would
defeat the very purpose Of the 1egisla.
ton which has been brought before the
senate committee for consideration, the
enactment Of which has been continu
ously urged upon congress by the com.
mercial and industrial interests Of the
country, during the past six years. can.
not believe that the senate committee
in view of the broad light which the pres
emit hearings have thrown upon the en-
tire question, will seriously consider an!
expedient Of shifting the present helpless
ness Of the public from one government
fundamentally to another. Far bette
would it be to deny absolutely the relic
sought.
Efforts of Railroads.
Persistent effort has been made by tn
railway companies in their testimony t.
divert public attention from the real issu
by the statement that the payment Of re
bates constitutes the chief evil in tn
transportation situation, which they ave
are q thing Of the past, and that, If not
the proposed legislation would not ten
to abate the evil. Whether or not the.
are a thing Of the past is known onl
to the carriers themselves and to the re
cipients of the rebates, and it is not t
the interest of either to disclose the fact
That the practice is much less genera
since the passage Of the Elkins act Q
1903 than previously there is good reaso
to believe. But the legislation now pro
posed is not calculated to have any eff
feet upon that practice in any way, an
it is mere subterfuge to assume that
has any. bearing upon it. The sole pur
tpose of the legislation sought is to pro
wide effectual means to prevent discrimi
nation in published tariff rates applied t
the traffic of the country, and to pre-
vent the imposition or continuance {
tariff rates by any device whatever, con
stitutes only one Of numerous forms {
discrimination, and, while perhaps tn
most offensive form,N 1t Is not In m
judgment, the most injurious one. Th1
relates. wholly to discrimination betwee
| individuals which the severe penaltie
prescribed in the Elkins act seem to hav
largely put stop to. It remains onl
to provide effective means of detectto
thru systematic method of governments
| inspection Of the books and accounts {
the carriers to completely prevent it. Blu
the grosser forms Of discrimination, thos
between different localities and differer
commodities, between local and thr
traffic, between carload and less tina
carload lots, and between domestic an
export or import traffic, are carried GU
| by means of published tariff rates an
can be prevented only by comforting tn
power upon some proper tribune
to make such change therein as may b
necessary to correct the wrong found t
exist. This is the power which the com
| mercial interests have the honor t
represent have so long been seeking
have congress confer.
:. Rate-Making Power.
! In this connection beg leave to sug
gest the advisability, in case the senat
CHI tn mn an
the comforting of this power, of restrict
ing the bill prepared for the purpose t
this single provision, in order that
may be considered Independently Of an
other, and be acted upon without refer
ence to any other amendment Of the LAY
that the committee may deem 1t best
recommend; this being the all-importan
question at issue. The collateral subject
treated upon during this discussion ca
be more readily reached, 1t seems to me
thru amendments to tho Elkins act, whic
applies specifically to determinations be
tween individuals. brought about by con
cessions OF some kind from publishe
| tariff rates, or by ingenious device
whereby one shipper Is given an advan
tage over another. This Is a wholly dill
ferent purpose, as will readily be pei
ceived, from that Of clothing the com
mission with power to determine the eS
tent to which published tariff rate
are unjust in relation to commu
mites or different descriptions Of .traffi
or otherwise, or are unreasonable
themselves, and bears no relation to it.
Constitutional Questions.
The constitutional questions involved
the controversy having been determined
so far as they can be otherwise than by
decision Of the supreme court. in favor {