The Washington times., 1905-10-22

III which complaint was made of the
charge or an excessive rate because the
measure OF damages was the difference
between the rate actually charged and
that which ought to have been charged.
or the maximum reasonable rate. Now.
the finding by the court of that maxi
mum reasonable rate, therefore. is as
Old as the common law, and the fact
that modern railway conditions have
increased the circumstances that NAV
properly affect rate. does not furnish
the sightest argument for holding that
commission or other tribunal may not
properly De vested with the power to fix
what maximum reasonable rate is.
Sesondr 1t is objected that the pro-
posed amendment gives the commission
power 10 NIX all the rates in the coun-
try that this takes away from the
companies the power to manage their
own lines. placing In the hands of five
inexperienced laymen the business of
determining the price OF transporta-
ton. and that they must create con-
FUSION This has been the main areu-
ment
The proposition that a commission
exercising powers an the present COM
mission, would initiate wholesale rates
Tor the country. IL advance Of COM
flasnts, and thus transfer the MANAGE
ment OF the rate making from the rail-.
way company to the commission, 10 ab-
solutsly absurd.
A Futile Task.
1t is not to be supposed for one
moment that Congress would intend
or that any board would attempt such
an Impossible and futile task
Should there be an abuse of this
power. which 1t is not for us to antici-
pate, a simple amendment limiting the
power might be inserted The Presi-
dents proposition is that the COM
mission should hear a complaint that q
particular rate is unreasonable. declare
IL unreasonable. and fix a rate which
should be reasonable in an order
which should stand until set aside by
court His plan does not involve the
wholesale fixing or initiating of rates
Dy the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion and the assumption that 1t does
by those who oppose his proposition
justifes the inference that they are
setting up straw men to be knocked
down in discussion
But Is said that the fixing of a single
rate involves change OF SO many other
rates that II does involve a making ovar
Q. the whole system of rates 1t is true
that In some instances one rate will af-
rect many. II it does. it is for the car
ffer 10 adjust the other rates to suit the
rate fxed by the commission
IL may be conceded that the great bulk
OF rates are reasonable. but by unrea
sonaoleness in comparatively few rates.
great injustice can be done. and when 81
Is understood that efficient machinery IS
offered by the law TO correct abuses.
they are certain to be less
All we intend Is to trtng before a
tribunal rates which are subject of dis
puts, and with respect TO ALI others
Saee-nakng Win 60 on by the railroad
company at its discretion, without In
tcxfsrsnce by the commission or any
othsr body authorized to act.
Government Management.
IL Is said that to allow the commission
to prescribe rates Is equivalent to gov
eminent management 1t is no more
equivalent to government management
than is the requirement OF the statutes
of the United States that freight cars
shall have self-ceupling devices or air
brakes
The investigation of rates and the de-
does regulate the railway company as 10
that rate, but not as to other rates.
Again, II is asked what is the use O.
having commission? Why not have
these complaints made directly to the
court and have the court settle them
There are two answers. The first is.
that with an efficient commission. ex-
pericnce will enable them to dispose of
usual matters of controversy more ran 1
iGly than the court. OF course, where
serious issue of law arises the iudg-
ment or the court is TO be preferred tn
thas OF the commission: but the great |
majority of cases can be disposed of by !
tre commission with probably as Just |
a result as by the court.
When the commission has dxea tba
rate and issued It's order, it then bo- |
comes competent for a court to pass
upon the question whether such a rate |
Offers the company reasonable compen-
sation, and that Is tine form which an |
appeal to the court would take If the
rate fxsd IL found not to be reasonable |
the court can protect the railway.
The Judicial Order.
- objection made to the feature OF |
the proposed amendment by which the |
order OF the commission shall be In /
force until set aside by judicial order |
Is that the railroad company NAV be !
made TO lose large sums by furnisbIrs-
transportation at rates which afterward /
are shown urreasonably low. II a. Diff
cult to see why there should not be at
tacned TO the finding or n commission
experiencod - such, at least prtrua |
Iacie correctness. Indeed, ono may
fairly protest against the con.smutuous |
manner in which reference In mada bv
railroad presidents to the value ana