The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-13
OPPOSED BY SPENCER
APPEARS AGAINST THE COOPER
 QUARLEs BILL.
President of the Southern Railway Says the Carriers Will Assist in the Abolition of Rebate
 System.

System. Washington, Jan. 12.-Samuel Spen- | cer. President of the Southern Railway and authorized to voice the sentiment of the New York Central, Erie. Chica- go, Milwaukee and St. Paul, Northern Pacific, Central Delaware, Lackawanna and Western. and other railway com l panies spoke vigorously today before | the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee in op- position to the Cooper-Q -Quarles bill or any proposition to authorize the Inter state Commerce Conlmission to fx railway rates. MT. Spencer is the l first direct and official representative of the railways to be heard by the Com mittee and his testimony Is regarded as the keynote of the opposition to the rate-fixing by the government. Mir. Spencer stated at the outset that l 1t was not his purpose to discuss the ! subject in It's entirety. There were. | however, a number of important points | which he wished to emphasize. Be- 1 fore the operation of the interstate | commerce law the rebate, the secret | contract of discriminatory devices or various kinds were the rule. Now the reverse Is the case. Rates are, sub l stantially maintained.
 ."There is no difference of opinion"
 
 railroads of the country, Congress and | the President on the subject that re- bates are wrong. We agree with the | language of the President that the | highways of transportation must be Kept open to all upon equal terms. On 1 that basis the railway companies are | ready and anxious to aid and co-op- crate But I do not think any addi- l tional legisvation is necessary in order ! st l class of abuses. If such legislation l does appear to Congress to be neces- sary, the railways of the country will | certainly stand, and I have no hesita- | tion in saying so, in cooperation and | aid to that end.
 That particular phase of regAila- | tions has already been pronounced by | the Commission as fully covered by | existing statutes. It simply becomes question of enforcement of the law. s"But the question before you Is not l of that character, 1t Is that of the | power to name a rate upon the part Of | the Commission after complaint and | hearing. It has been claimed this | will be a means of stopping rebates. | This claim I have no hesitation ip disputing, and will give that atten- | ton later"
 Asking the question as to the neces- | sity for the proposed legislation, MT. | Spencer answered it by reviewing the
 situation as developed during the last | eighteen years. About 90 per cent of all the claims or questions of various kinds which have been presented to | the Interstate Commerce Commission
 during that time have been adjusted
 without formal hearing and decisions | on the part of the Committee.
 That" he said, does not indicate
 incorporation on the part of the | railroads"
 MT. Spencer said the railroads &C., quiesced in four-fifths of the deci- sions of the commission. Gut of the forty-three which went to litigation"
 he continued, twenty-five related to rate and twenty-five out of the twen- ty-five cases the decisions Of tho com mission were reversed by the courts. | One case only was affirmed by the courts in its entirety while two were partly confirmed, and partly re- yersed."
 These figures covers eighteen years and a railroad mileage of 210.000 miles | at the present time and 115,000 miles lat the beginning of the period named. Does this indicate the necessity for Legislation with respect to rates," queried MT. Spencer.
 He expressed the confidence of the railroad world in the commission and said it was justly worthy of the re- spect of the country. There was only one feature of the "Quarles- Cooper bill" which he wished to discuss spe-
 officially. that was the portion con- I ferring power on the commission to substitute a rate for one complained
 of as unreasonable, after a due hear-a ing, said rate to remain in effect sub ject to change only by the commission
 or by the courts on appeal by the rail-
 ways.
 MT. Spencer denied the commission
 ever legally had such power and said
 the courts in 1897, had prohibited the
 exercise of the power by the commis-
 sion
 The most important claim in behalf
 of the proposal, Mir. Spence' believed 1 to be that such a power would enable
 the commission to prevent discrimina-
 ton between localities. This question
 of adjusting rates between locali- | ties he said, was the most difficult
 and intricate of all The present ad-
 justment was the outgrowth of nat
 ural competition, not only between To-
 calities which had and would always
 exist but between railroads as we'll | Taking the committee's report Mir
 Spencer stated that in the three years prior to 1901, only thirty-one cases of
 discrimination between localities had
 come before 1t and only one of these
 had been sustained by the courts | These when taken in connection with
 the 20.00 miles of railroad and the forty-five States of the union indSca-
 ted to his mind that no new authority
 need be given on this problem. If au- | thority should be granted, there would
 not be a locality which would not
 bring forth the claim that it was dis
 criminated against in order to secure
 additional advantages If possible.
 Taking up the subject of unreasona- ble rates Mir. Spencer referred to the
 statement which had been made tp
 the commission that rates were thirty
 three-one-thousands of one per
 cent higher in 1903 than in 1899,
 making a total raise of $115, O0O, 900. | This he conceded to be true when the
 gross receipts were taken into consid-
 eration. The net returns to the roads
 had been less than in 1899, which was
 bad year as to rates.