The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-10-25
THEODORE ROOSEVELT. Continued from Fourth Page.)


 loss to be sustained by the reduced gate, if it should be set asidt- hv the courts, that would be one thing; but such provision in the pr1p1sei leg!s- lai:on is not offered and would he inl- ISssible. The government would not and ought not to furnish such indem- nifty. The government ought to occupy an impartial position throughout these proceedings and if it should furnish in- demnity, questions without number, some of them dangerous, would arise.
 The complainants would not furnish such indemnity and could not if they would; for the losses might run up into millions of dollars.
 We are not dealing with small ques- tions, but those involving large amounts; involving also the commer- cial value of localities and the whole industrial system. For the question of rate, to a market, affects all those dealing in that market, and a reduc- tion of rates to that market from a certain quarter, might put out of &C., tion the old traders in that market.
 Indeed, I believe that the foundation of substantially all the complaints about rates, is the desire of shippers to enter new markets, or to gst into existing markets, on more favorable terms, and from either point of view, there would come a disturbance among the traders in that market.
 Hence it is that the complainants have no interest in the question of rates, from the standpoint whether they afford a reasonable profit or not to the carrier.
 Whatever the rate, it is charged over to the consumer.
 But on appeal, with the question unsettled, would the shipper always give to the consumer the reduced rate?
 If on appeal the order should be re- versed, would not both shipper and consumer probably suffer from the confusion incident to the restoration of rates?
 How during an appeal can there be stability of rates?
 Now why should not an existing con- dition of affairs continue while the COuL Lo tbI . GlGttIll IElclI d governmental interference with that condition is an act of conf1scation? The third question is whether there is danger to industry and the public welfare in the proposed legislation. By it the United States is practically to have the power to decide at what price the carrier is to furnish transpor- tation.
 The bill, as it passed the House, bristles with punishment by heavy fines and forfeitures and imprisonment for noncompliance at once with the order.
 The railroad managers will be bold men if they refuse, to comply at once with the order, though they may ap- peal to the courts.
 Nobody can tell what would happen 1 in case of such appeal, but it is quite | evident, from the strenuousness of President Roosevelt on this subject, that he and the advocates of the leg- islation expect that the United States ! will have the power to fix rate which will stay.
 There is no sense to their conduct, unless they believe such will be the re- sult
 The next steps-why not?-would be that the United States should have the l power, in the same way, to fix the rates for telegraph, express or long 1 distance telephone service-fix the rates for all dealers in interstate com merce,-there are very few who are not at which to sell meat, oil, coal, iron, paper, furniture, clothing, flour, &c.,, Sc. i At Atlanta, Ga., the day following his speech at Raleigh, among other l things, President Roosevelt said: 1 Undoubtedly there is need of regu- latlon By the government, in the inter- est of the public, of these. great corpo- i rations which in modern life have shown themselves to be the most effi-