The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-13
NEW RATE LAWS NOT NEEDED
PRESIDENT or THE SOUTHERN
TELLS HOUSE COMMITTEE.
Rebates Should He stopped. He Admits but
Present statutes Are sunicient-Poor
Showing Made by the Interstate CONF
merce Commission Before the Courts.

! WASHINGTON. Jan. 12.-Samuel Spencer
I president of the Southern Railway, gave
interesting testimony before the House
Committee on Interstate Commerce to-day
on tho proposition to give the Interstate
| Commerce Commission the rate making
power
Mr. Spencer said he did not appear solely
for the Southern, but in behalf Of number
Of roads. These are understood to be
the New York Central. the Northern Paoifc,
the Erie. the Delaware, Lackawanna and
Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee and st.
Paul the Illinois Central and others, includ-
ing Morgan. Hill and Vanderbilt lines.
President Cassatt and Fifth Vice-Presi-
dent Rhea OF the Pennsylvania system
said to favor some legislation-were in
terested listeners, "a well "a General Counsel
Blythe OF the Burlin gton, Col. John Boyd
of the Huntington system, j. II. Maddy Of
the Baltimore and Ohio and other railroad
representative
Mr.. Spencer said there was no difference
OF opinion between Congress, the President
and the railroads that rebates and secret
discriminating devices were wrong and
should be stopped. But he saw no reason
for additional legislation. Tho commits
sion had pronounced the ground fully
covered The question before the com
mit'ee, as he understood Il. was that of
general authority 10 name rate- after COM
plant and hearing.
He proceeded 10 review the history OF
the cases before the commission for the
last eighteen years TO show that only a
very few of them had ever gone TO the courts,
and of those the commission had been sus
tanned in only one in which rates were
involved, and in two it had been partly
sustained and partly reversed. OF all
the cases presented to the commission,
90 per cent. had been settled without a hear
ing. OF the l43 cases decided against the
railroads, the carriers acquiesced in four
fifths. SO that only 2 per cent. Of all the cases
presented to the commission ever reached
the courts. Analysing further he found
that Of the l43 cases but i3 related 10 rates.
and OF these there were Is which reached
the courts. In - such cases the commission
was reversed, he did not think this ind-
Gated great necessity for the proposed
legislation in view Of the fact that these cases
covered period OF eighteen years and the
rates on $50 OOo miles OF roads
He then took UP the Cooper bill disputng
the contention that IL merely proposed 70
restore 10 the commission a power IL once
exercised The courts had emphatically
held it had had no such power. The only
possible basis for the statement was that IN
the first ten years the railroads gcqucsc.d
in the findings Of the commission IN tie
matter OF rates withut carrying the cases
TO the courts.
It wouldn't help the rebate question any.
he said. II the commission should reduce
rates because of lower rate efactive
through reba,ing, il would punish the
innocent roads which had maintained the
rates and not the guilty road which, by re-
batting had signitled it's willingness TO
accept the lower rate.
There never can be stability of rates
he declared, for that would mean CONNER
cial stagnatiou.'
He then considered the charge that the
rates were unreasonable and unjust In them
selves. In eighteen years, he declared,
the courts had not sustained the commls-
sion in a single case IN which the complaint
had been that the rates were unreasonable
and unjust per SO.
The Elkins act gave the commission the
most summary powers in this respect as
drastic az those conferred in any country
where trial precedes conviction. The
remedy is at hand, he declared and ask
II it would not work irrepaTabie injury TO
the railroads il the rate csta blished by the
commission should be effective until re-
versed by tho courts.