Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-04-08
PROBLEMS RATE REGULATION


MADISON, Neb, April 6, 1sO6.-To the
Editor of The Bee: AS you we'll know,
am a strong admirer Of The Bees anti
monopoly policy, and 1 was not surprised
to see It come out strongly in support OF
the railroad rate bill which lies so closely
to the presidents heart But there are a.
few questions that bother me, among
which are the following:
/. II private railway ownership is the
fixed policy of the United States and con-
gress shall pass rate law or authorize
the Interstate Commerce commission to
adopt and enforce a fixed rate which
should interfere with the railways free
dom Of contract, would 1t not be uncon-
stitutional and void?
q II such a measure should happen to
trench on and impair the value of rail-
way property would it not be void under
the fifth amendment to the constitution
as practical oonfiscation Of private prop-
erty? 90
g. How can congress pass an act which
will deprive constitutionally established
judicial tribunals of jurisdiction to declare
a fixed rate In violation of the constltu-
ton and therefore void?
In propounding these questions do not
accept the idea that congress can at will
narrow and enlarge the Jurisdiction of
constitutionally established courts.
Do you not believe that railway rate
regulation may become a very grievous
and unjust form Of public ownership And
do you not think that it would be more
Just to the railways and TO the people
for the government, under the power Of
eminent domain, to reduce enough of the
transcontinental lines and their feeders to
public ownership to establish an effectual
automatic regulation of rates? have the
honor to be, very truly yours
WIN. V. ALLEN.
The Bee has been discussing almost
from day to day the problems of rate
regulation in their various phases For
mer Senator Aliens questions, however.
are pertinent and to the point, even
though they cover some ground already
traversed, and are deserving of equally
pointed answers.
1. We fail to see how the enactment
of a rate law or the adoption and en-
forcement of a fixed rate by the Inter
state Commerce commission could be
construed as an unconstitutional inter-
ference with the railways freedom of
contract. 1t is an axiom Of common
law both in this country and Great
Britain that common carriers are sub
ject to rate regulation TO greater or
lesser extent. Many of our states, in
GLIDING Nebraska, have passed rate
regulation laws and so far as we are
aware, none Of them have ever been de-
clared void for the reason that they
interfere with the railways freedom
of contract.
2. II the rates fixed should trench on
and impair the value Of railway prop
erty, the railroads would unquestionably
be entitled to protection under the fifth
amendment TO the constitution. The
question what constitutes confiscation,
however, is one that must be determined
in the light Of all the circumstances and
conditions. The enforcement Of the Ne
braska maximum rate law was en'Oined
on the finding that 1t would be confisca.
tory, but at the same time the court In
its order declared that under different
conditions of traffic these rates might
be compensatory and that upon a proper
showing the injunction might be dis
solved. The voiding of rate made by
the Interstate Commerce commission be
cause it amounted to confscation would
not void the entire law empowering
the commission TO fix rates but quite
the contrary. the commission would still
be free to fix a reasonable rate undei
the authority Of the same law.
3. Every one agrees that congress-
cannot pass an act that will prevent thu
regularly established judicial tribunals
from declaring void a rate fixed in viola
ton OF the constitution. II is urged b!
great constitutional lawyers. however
that congress may determine the pro
eedure for appeal from the establish
ment OF the rate SO that the new reti