The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-08-01
clearly explained by . very promi-

clearly explained by . very proni- nent attorney of Washington.
 The great point In this case," said he, in an interview today. 'is that the Commission, after having refused to use the power which 1t has in the admin
 istration of the Interstate Commerce act. has Abeen forced to do so by the federal courts,
 Ever since 1897 the Commission has
 been busily asitating for such increas- ed power as will allow 1t to regulate rates. In 1900 it made an order fn-
 structing It's secretary to cooperate
 to securing the rate-making power for
 the Commission. The expressions Of this body have continually been to the effect that 1t is without power, and recently some of it's members have been quite active in making addresses point
 ing out that the law Is of no value. In Its thirteenth annual report. for 1899. the Commission said that any railroad company can charge for It's service whatever 1t pleases." 4
 These statements are indicative of the position of the Interstate Commerce Commission, showing that 1t Is either unwilling or lacks the ability to secure the administration of the present in- terstate commerce law, which the best legal talent in the country has con- sidered sufficient for the elimination of all unfair practices If enforced. The commission has, in it's agitation for greater power, refused to use that which 1t has. and to this, more than to any other cause. attribute the present discussion concerning the desirability of government regulation of rates
 The most startling statement of all, however, Is that in which the comis- sion says that 1t has been forced to advise complaining shippers that under that act, as at present applied, 1t was powerless to afford them any effective relief. The Commission has repeatedly discouraged proceedings upon the con- plaints of shippers. advising them that such action would be useless, and thus strongly suggesting that they go to Congress for relief in the form of legis- 'latton giving greates powers to the commission. Yet this Taft case is ex- actly typical of those in which the commission has continually declared it. self to be powerless, and in this case the commission, instead of looking after the interests of the complaining shippers of its own voIition was prac- ticalfy forced to do so by a federal court. The commission has stated that 1t can aid shippers in no way in cases
 
 direct application to Judge Speer-an application which should, by the way, have been made by the Commission after investigation-receive tempo rary injunction, the commission being by the court in It's duty to the effect that 1t should investigate and report in order that 1t might be finally decided whether the injunction should be made permanent With very con- a dAr A@y- kk done this. Judge Speer has upheld the finding of that body, and during further litigation pending final decision has given full protection to shippers by the railroads to give bond for S50o.o00 covering any losses to shippers which may arise in the interim should his decision be sustained.
 'In other words, the shipper has re- ceived relief and full protection in a case typical of hundreds in which the claims to have been, in it's own words forced to advise complain Ing shippers that 1t Is powerless to af- ford them any effective relief
 Effective relief has been afforded In just such case, not through the efforts of the commission, which was created for just this end, but through the efforts of a federal court. which found it necessary to indicate to the the course of its duty This ease shows that the commission was wrong in informing complaining ship pers that 1t was powerless to afford them any affective relief. and that the present interstate commerce laws are sufficient to afford such relief Is shown by the fact that the railroads were for bidden by an injunction to put the pro- posed increased rate into effect, and have been forced to give bonds to cover my losses which may result to shippers If this rate Is finally determined to be unfair and unduly high. In other words. If the final court decides that his rate in unfair and unduly high he shippers will be reimbursed by the 'allroads for all losses which they may lave incurred on shipments made dur ng the period of litigation.
 Had the Commission from it's in- ,eption been content to secure the ap- of the interstate commerce aw instead of confining its activity 'ery largely to agitation for increased powers. I believe that the chief cause Or the present discussion would have been removed. At all events, this 'ase proves conclusively that the Com mission has been wrong in it's state nents to the effect that the present in erstate commerce laws are valueless md that 1t Is powerless, since, when 'oreed to do so by federal court, through its exercise of that power which it claims 1t has not and in in- turing the observance of that law which 1t claims to be valueless, 1t has relief to complaining shippers n case typical of those in which in he past 1t has failed to act. ..
 Tt is not my purpose here to dis 'uss the question of government rate 'egulation. I merely wish to point 'ut as a lawyer that the present laws Ire afficacious and that the Interstate Commerce Commission has sufficient power to insure their observance should t choose to use that power"
 Other attorneys. in discussing this 'ase, agree that the present interstate commerce laws, If enforced by the Commission with its present powers, Ire sufficient to grant relief to com shippers in cases of injustice; md hold that the claims of the Com mission of lack of power and lack of | alue of the present interstate com nerce laws have. in this decision by | udge Speer, received an extremely l erious reveral. It is generally point | d out that as Judge Speer's decision | pdicates. the present interstate com | 1erce laws. if properly enforced. are | ufficient to cover all unfair practices.