Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1905-06-30
ONE MINUTE ARGUMENT NO. 7.


ONE MINUTE ARGUMENT NO. z.
The railroad press bureau, depart
ment of the northwest, under the
direction of Curtis l.. Moshier, has
just sent out ''One- Minute Argument
No Z" addressed "To the Editor"
says the Minneapolis Journal. At
the beginning of this argument the
writer wants to know how the editor
would feel if the newspaper business
was about to be "crippled by foolish
and drastic legislation" or if new
laws promised to hamper the editor
so that he could no longer exercise
legitimate freedom in the conduct of
his business. We must ask to be ex
cused if we cannot see any possible
basis for such COMPARISON. The news.
paper business is private business,
The railroad business is a public bus
mess, and it seems that it is still nee
essary to hammer somewhat upon
that point before people who write
for railroads see it. But no hammer
ing now.
There are other points in this AR
gument No. T." of more particular
terest. One is the assumption that
the Esch ,Townshend bill is the meas
ure, and the only one supported by
advocates Of government regulation.
The Esch Townsend bill is mere
incident. Probably most friends of
government regulation will agree
that it is crude and does not fit the
crime, SO it is not necessary to de-
bate the merits of that measure.
The principle of government regula-
ton of railroads will not depend up
on its adoption or its defeat.
argument No. Z" also disavows
any hostility to the president and in
dorses comfortably the presidents de.
mand for square deal" +" How for
tunate it is that everybody wants a
Square deal" That's what the
friends of government regulation de-
sire, too.
But when argument No Z" calls
attention to the ia ct that 92 per cent
of all cases taken up By the inter
state commerce commission have
been adjusted without formal hear
ing it seems to us that we have the
best evidence that the interstate com
merce commission is likely to have
small occasion to make rates. Indeed
it seems as if the experience OF the
interstate commerce commission in
this respect would be very similar
to that of our state commission. The
latter has the power to make rates,
but almost never has occasion to do
so because e-unless we are very much
mistaken--it has the power. Our ex-
pectation is that the same considera-
tions which make it unnecessary for
our state commission to make rates
will have a like effect in the case
of the Interstate commerce commits.
sion when clothed with the same
power.
As to the injustice of putting q
new rate made by the commission
into effect without judicial hearing
which new rate is afterward declar
ed unfair, if that injustice is to bt
avoided by having hearing first
to which most advocates of govern
ment regulation will make no objec
tion provided the hearing is prompt
what about the injustice TO th'
shipper coming from postponemen
of the operation OF the new rats
when it is sustained by the courts
There ought at least to be provi
sion for refunding to the shipper th'
difference collected during the inter
val when the new rate was namel
by the commission and the tim
when it was confirmed by the court
This might be taken up in Zone
Minute Argument No. 8.