New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-05
THE RATE BILL DEBATE.

Senator Foraker's speech on railroad rate
regulation last Wednesday was undeniably In
feresting and forcible; but from the point OF
wow Of the ouposition in the Senate, its help
I fulness may be doubted 1t had the Tault OF
nroving too much. After hanging, drawing anu
ouartering a man for high treason, it seems
/ hardly worth while to try him for libel or
netty larceny The Ohio Senator holds that the
Hepburn bill IS in intent and implication, in
spirit and letter, boldly and irremediably I'M
constitutional. He declares that it "c0mmIn-
'gles I'm q political board, claimed to be admin
"istrative In character, all three of the powers
"of government, legislative, judicial and exec
"utiye" and asserts that at is impossible for
"such a measure to receive the sanction OF the
courts" But, If this diagnosis OF the Hepburn
bill IS correct, the opposition'S zeal In contest
ing the passage of the measure and In wran-
Cling over the phraseology of court review pro-
visions and other trivial details is merely ner-
yous effort wasted. If Congress cannot create
railroad commission and delegate TO It the
power to alter a given rate on appeal from
shipper the whole scheme OF control worked
out in the Hepburn bill falls TO the ground. IN
that case the railroads have absolutely nothing
TO fear from the bill now before the Senate.
Its passage would simply give the supreme
Court an opportunity 70 define little more
clearly the limitations under which FEDERAL
any one begrudge the Supreme Court this oppor-
tunity2 If the Hepburn measure had no other
merit the fact that it would force judicial
INTERPRETATION of the governments powers ought
10 commend It to those who think the present
agitation for rate regulation harmful and are
satisfied in their own minds that the Supreme
Court will dismiss the plan proposed IN the
Hepburn bill as impracticable under our scheme
of government. Why is an assurance of that
sort not worth having and worth working for?
It is rather curious, too, to find Senator For
aker opposing the passage of rate bill because
ii would overturn the practice of granting diff
ferentials on export traffic He says that the
differential system violates the prohibition in
the Constitution against giving preference to
the ports Of one state over those of another.
1t is not necessary to admit that differentals
do have the effect of discriminating against the
ports Of one state in favor Of those of another.
1t may be plausiby argued that they tend, on
the contrary, TO eQualiZe conditions at the vart-
Gus ports, balancing the varying land and water
haus in the handling Of freight destined to the
same foreign market. If they are unconstitu-
tiOnal, however, no strict consuuctionlst can
well object to their abolition. It seems a rather
remarkable mixture Of logic to oppose the Hep
burn bill on the broad ground that it is uncon-
stitutional in essence and then further to at
tack it on the ground that If it got through the
courts by any lapse Of reason it would put
an end to the unconstitutional practice of dis
eliminating IN favor Of one port and against
another by means of differentals.
Mr.. Foraker let it be understood the other
day that he differed radically In opinion from
the other Republican Senators who voted against
reporting the Hepburn BILL They seem less
convinced than ne that the House measure, as
it stands. is a dead letter, and are bent work
ing over the court review section so as to pro-
vide a supervision by the courts Of the whole
machinery of rate adjustment. They seem to
deny the possibility of non-revieW, and ask TO
have the jurisdiction of the courts broadly and
specifically recognized. Mr. Foraker appears to
hold that under the Hepburn bill appeals would
be greatly limited the commission having pen-
airy power in broad range Of cases. Without
this power the commission would. in fact be
virtually crippled. Yet many Of the opponents
Of the bill want an emasculating construction
put on the court review clause, on the pretext
that such an emasculatlOn surrenders nothing.
1t would be well If the opposition got together
on some consistent theory of the real deadlness
or innOcuousness Of the Hepburn bill