The sun., 1905-12-12
RATE DEBATE IN THE SENATE,
IiILNt FLOi RiSHES ms Fi-
NOIS PIT(IIFORk.
~,N., Ttt"c WIN Bc No Rate Legislation
n, Long ~ 'thr Present Occupant OF
IN" WHITE I!Dusc" Retains ITS Once
Srtback to Efforts for COnpromiSr.


uurtdnt 70 h" considered by the Congress
~ the present ses,iur, was initiated in the
S,euat" to-day, and the war of words il on
rr.dav'- drbnt> was only skirmish. but
u wd, lively for II time and showed thar
'norr j. - u" determined fight.
MIR. TInan tDem., S. c. unsheat thed
lD- famous pitchfork for the first time in
thr ffty-ninth Congress and took few
abs at President Roosevelt and Paul Nor
ton. formerly Secretary of the Navy and
now head of the Equitable Life Assurance
Soceiy. Mr.. Tlhnan declared in substance
that there would not be any rate lrgisla
'lon n long a. the present occupant OF
th" Whit" House retained his high Office.
The discussion was interesting also in
GcNeloping definitely what had been con-
rdent!y suspected. that Senator PhilOnder
G. Knox of Pennsy yvania. vino was At
tornev-G General in the Cabinet Of Mr., Roose-
,elt, will be one of the principal cham
lions of the Administrations railway rate
uocy on the floor Of the Senate. But Mr..
knox and other prominent Republicans
sat silent when Mr.. 1ilman made his hostile
passes at the President and former Secre-
tary Morton.
some of the most influential members
If the Senate said afterward that they
rcgretted the precipitation of the railway
rate question before rate bill had been
reported from the Committee on Interstate
Commerce.. because it had served to draw
the lines too closely al a time when there
vas no definite proposal under discussion
although the discussion was started by
tho presentation by Mr.. Tillman Of bill
authorizing the Interstate Commerce Com
mission to fix "a maximum legal rate
They expressed the opinion that to-day's
controversy on the floor would give set
back to the recent tendency on the part
of those leading Senators who want radical
legislation and those leading Senators
Who are in favor of disposing Of this mo-
mentous matter conservatively TO show
spirit of compromise in determining upon
the scope and character of the bill to be
brought before the Senate.
50 far this spirit of compromise has not
tnken definite shape, There have been
no formal conferences between the several
factions concerned, and no attempt has
been made to bring together al the same
time the Senators who will ultimately frame
the Senate rate measure, if such a measure
Is to be framed. No compromise sections
of a rate bin have been reduced to writing
The main point Of difference is over tho
question of granting additional powers to
the Interstate Commerce Commission. In
to-day's interesting debate Mr.. Foraker
made an argument to show that to confer
on the commission the proposed authority
to fix rates would be a delegation Of legis
lative authority by Congress, which was
contrary to the Federal Constitution. Sena-
tor Bailey of Texas combated Mr.. Foraker's
contentious and got into a polite dispute
zrprt hn nj a ion nj ~ a
Supreme Court of the United States, which
was renewed later in the day. Mr.. Foraker
was piled with knotty questions by Mr..
Bailey and other opponents, Senator Knox
among them, but he held his ground
Mr. Knox admitted that Mr. Foraker
was correct in stating that the legislative
power of Congress could not be delegated
but he asked II it were not true that while
YOU cannot delegate the entire legislative
power. Congress may prescribe rule and
leave the application of the rule in specific
cases to an administrative body 40 that II
the act Of Congress provide that rates should
he fairand just and reasonably remuneratve,
n any other definition that it might gee iii
70 impose upon it, that it could delegate
TO the Commission the power to apply that
rule TO specific cases as they arise and has
not that been specifically decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States in Field
Va Clark, constituting the tariff act of 1892
Il am glad" said Mr.. Foraker, that
the Senator has asked that question. 1t
show the distinction between what may
I've conferred and what cannot be con-
ferred, In the case Of Field against Clark
the President was authorized, when a
certain state of facts came to his knowl-
edge, to make proclamation. From and
after the issuing of such proclamation
Congress said the tariff duty should be
IhI- and So Now, the Supreme Court
held what? That that was not a delega-
rIOn of legislative authority, that nothing
vas conferred upon the President of the
nited States except only an admnistra- /
two duty to ascertain state OF facts. 70 !
l--lIe "A proclamation, and then the will |
IT Congress went into operation. That !
illustrates exactly what | meant to say |
u minute ago. The Congress may say
with respect to railro'd rates: You shall /
charge 80 much Il mile on wheat, and so |
much mile on corn and so much mile |
ON live stock Then it can appoint n com /!
mission and confer upon it power to fix !
specific rates. The commission can take (,
q yard stick, measure it off, and determine
what the rate shall be by a mathematical ,
calculation.
Congress may provide that any road /
having an income of a named amount /
over and above operating expenses snail .
ID" allowed to charge so nAch and no more,
and commission may be authorized to !
ascertain, a. an administrative function, |
what the rate shall be. applying the con-
d'tons that Congress first named. But
when Congress says reasonable gates
>'lail be charged a. law, without any
declaration of Congress- although it Is
important as statutory provision in
another aspect, as shall point out when
come to discuss this question. that leaves
what A Legislative discretion. SO, in the
case Of Field VI. Clark, there was no legis-
.aty" discretion conferred on the Presi-
dent
In the illustration have given no legis-
lallyr discretion is allowed only positive
duty i affirmatively imposed; and it Is
tu" duty of the commission to ascertain
and write down the figures that show the
i"~llt Of their computation.
!" rllman said that his bill, upon which
',-ua discussion was based, went to
~" kern cf the nut, and gave the Presi-
dent what u" ds sired. and Mr.. Foraker
"omplimonted the bill as the best yet pro-
posed because it was the least harmful.
Mr. Foraker said it wise to leave
tn" matter Of rebates determinations and
di1"nntal. 10 the Elkns act, which pro-
'ld"d amply for them. If the Government
"aS gong into the rate making business
h" thought the Tillman bill was the most
,,rn"'hl" measure yet submitted 1T has
lh" merit of brevity and simplicity he
ptn 1T left the matter of rebates and