The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-07-20
REGULATION OF RAILWAYS

Holding that great injustice would be done
the railways by the Esch-Townsend bill, the Chi
cago Record Herald would change that part of the
measure which provides that commission fix
a reasonable rate and that the rate go into
effect Immediately The Record-Herald suggests
that the rate fixed by the commission should not
the courts, but that the difference between the
rate fixed by the commission and the rate
charged by the railway be held in escrow and
be paid back to the shipper in case the decision
is against the railway. Congressman Walter l.
Smith of Council Bluffs, replying to a request
from the RecordHerald for his opinion, gives
the following clear statement of the objections
to the plan:
In my opinion your proposed amendment
to the Esch-Townsend bill would not operate
to effect justice and should not be adopted.
The one who pays the rate in law and the one
who pays it in fact not the same one.
If complaint should be made of the rate on
grain, and the commission should order re-
duction of the rate and the order should be
suspended as proposed by you, if the rate
fixed by the commission was ultimately held
to be fair the refund would go to the grain
dealer who made the shipment. Even the
most guileess can see that the grain dealer
would buy upon the basis of the rate he was
actually paying, and not upon the basis of the
rate fixed by the commission The result
would be that the refund would go, not to the
farmer, who would in fact lose it, but to the
grain dealer who had not lost it at ALL The
same difficulty would arise with reference to
every case where goods were shipped by any
but the actual producers direct to the actual
consumer The merchant who pays the ex-
cessive rate would sell his goods upon the
basis of the rate actually paid by him and the
consumer would pay the excessive rate which
he would never be able to recover. Fairness
requires that it be also conceded that if the
commission rate be put in operation, and in
fact it is too low the railroad company can
not in any practical way recover the amount
lost So that if the excessively high rate is
extorted the person who actually pays it can
never recover it, and if an excessively low
rate is imposed the corporation losing upon
it is actually without remedy It being per-
fectly manifest therefore, that whether we
suspend the rate enforce it, great injustice
is to be done either to the railroad company
or to the person actually paying freight, the
practical question simply is, would it on the
whole be better to impose this injustice upon
the company or on the freight payer? My
judgment is that it ought to be imposed on
the company, and for this reason The COM
pany in the first instance establishes it's own
rate and this be changed only upon a
finding by what is presumed to be an impair
tia1 body that the rate is unjust, unreasonable
or excessive. This body having so deter
mined, and it being perfectly clear that either
to suspend or refuse to suspend may work a
great injustice, the simple question is, should
we presume, under all the circumstances that
this impartial board is right wrong? If it
is to be presumed until the courts have deter