The Saint Paul globe., 1905-01-13


would be a means of stopping rebates.
putting and. viii give that attention
later
Railroads Mot Antagonistic
Asked a question as to the necessity
for the proposed legislation, Mr.. Spen-
Ger answered it by reviewing the stu
alton as developed during the last
eighteen years. About 80 per cent of
all the claims or questions of various
kinds which have been presented to the
interstate commerce commission dur
ing that time have been adjusted with
out formal hearing and decisions on
the part of the commission. That"
he said, docs not indicate either
fight or non on-co-operation on the part
of the railroads.
OF the remaining 10 per cent of the
work of the commission scarcely 2 per
cent was the subject of litigation.
Mr.. Spencer said the railroads ac-
quiesced in four-fifths of the decisions
of the commission. "Out of the forty
three which went to litigation" he con-
tinued, twenty-five related to rates
and in twelve out of the twenty-five
cases the decisions of the commission
were reversed by the courts. One case
only was affirmed by the courts in it's
entirety, while two were partially con-
fI1ned and partially reversed"
These figures covered eighteen years,
and a railroad mileage of 100000 at
the present time and 115, 900 miles at
the beginning of the period named.
docs this show the necessity of
fresh legislation with respect to rates ?"
queried Mr.. Spencer. He expressed
the confidence of the railway world in
the commission and said it was justly
worthy of the respect of the country.
No Power to Fix Rates
There was only one feature of the
Quarles- Cooper bill which he wished to
discuss specifically. That was the por-
ton comforting power on the commits
sion to substitute a rate for one COM
planned of as unreasonable after due
hearing, said rate to remain in effect
subject to. change Only by the COM
mission or by the courts on appeal by
the railways.
Mr.. Spencer denied that the commits
sion ever legally had such power, and
said the courts in 1897 had prohibited
the exercise of the power by the COM
mission.
The most important claim on behalf
of the proposal Mr.. Spencer believed
W Uc tLdt SuCil d pONSI WOulu CllctUiC
the commission to prevent dfscrimina-
tion between localities. This question
of adjusting rates between localities,
he said was the most difficult and in
tricate of all. The present adjustment
was the outgrowtlf of natural competi-
| tion, not only between localities, which
had and would always exist, but be-
tween railroads as well.
Taking up the commissions report,
| Mr.. Spencer stated that in the ten
| years prior to 1901 only thirty-one
cases of discrimination between local
| tiles had come before it and only one
of these had been sustained by the
| courts This when taken in connection
with the 100000 miles of railway and
J forty-fi five states of the Union indi-
| Gated to his mind that no new author
| ity need be given on this problem. If
such authority should be granted there
| would not be locality which would
1 not Immediately bring forth the claim
4 that it was Disseminated against in
| order to secure additional reductions.
Speaking of unreasonable rates, Mr..
1 Spencer referred to the statement that
had been made to the commission that
rates were thirty three one-thousandths
1 Of 1 per cent higher in% 1903 than in
1899, making total raise of s155, ,O00,-
| 600. This he conceded to be true when
] the gross rates We're taken into consid-
i Grafton. The net return to the roads
Hhad been less than in 1899, which was
/ a bad year as to rates.