The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-15
FOR THE HOUSE BILL
SENATOR RAINIER OF MARYLAND
 MAKES ARGUMENT.
Says Real Issue in Railroad Freight Rate Question fs Discrimination by the Carriers i'm Favor
 of Shippers.

 nounced his adherence to the rate bill
 as 1t passed the House. After stating that the power to regulate commerce. among the States Is the greatest power conferred upon Congress by the con stitutiou. Mir. Rayner entered immedi- ately upon the consideration of the various branches of his subject He expressed the opinion that dis criminatlon Is the real issue. 'Tf,"
 he said, Ian accurate railroad discrim- nation map of the United States were published today there is hardly any one who could be made to believe that 1t truly represents the actual situation. It would be decided by the public as the product and Authorization of a dis ordered intellect. We know, for in- stance, that the rate on certain lines of merchandise from Chicago to Denver is nearly three times as much as the rate on precisely the same line of mer- chandfse from New York to San Fran cisco.
 fswe know that the rate upon first class freight from New England to 1 the gulf fs less than the rate from Chicago to the same terminals, al- l though the distance Is more than 500 miles greater. We know that it costs l less to ship goods the entire distance across the continent than 1t does to ship the same goods on third dis tance and that when goods are destin- ed from Boston to Salt Lake City In | order to obtain the cheap rates, know | ing. these things. we must realize that such a condition of affairs at least requires supervision upon the part of some tribunal outside and beyond the railroads that are simply building up their own territory to increase their l own revenue and profits"
 Discussing what he declared to be
 the incompetency of the Interstate Com | n4~-f 1l f law to enforce rate making decrees, | Mir. Rayner said: We may scheme | and forge and fashion," he said, but it is not within the realm of human | integrity to formulate any plan ex- l cept the rate making power that will
 remedy the defect and supply the omis- | sion."
 He eontended that there is no doubt l of the power of Congress to invest a | commission with the power to estab- | fish rates, basing his conclusion upon decisions of the Supreme Court We l settle the standard here that the rates | are to be reasonable and not discrim-
 inative and a commission in pursuance | of an authority which we confer upon ' it in each case decides the proper rate | to be established in accordance with | the legislative standard that we here l enact" he said.
 "Furthermore, the Supreme Court has, in the maximum rate cases, dis cussed at length the proposition that l Congress had not vested the power 1 to fix rates in the Interstate Commerce 1 Commission and it never would have | wasted page after page upon discuss 1 sion of this sort If Congress itself did l not have the constitutional power to create rate making commission.
 Above everything else, however. in the | case in 167 U. S., Justice Brewer in de- E inf rF hA l phatically states that Congress has the constitutional power to create a com
 mission for the purpose of fixing rates.
 Mir. Rayner took up Mir Foraker's position on the bill and complimented
 his antagonist in high terms. He sald:
 1 T have never known hopeless cause
 to be managed with such consummate and matchless skill. The tide was dead against him and when he encountered
 a cloudburst of decisions from the State l and Federal courts, a torrent that | would overwhelm a man of ordinary l capacity, his genius irradiated the storm
 and placidly and serenely he rode upon ! the pillows"
 In reply to the cor ntentior that Con 1 gress has not the power to blend the | judicial and legislative powers in a
 body like the Interstate Commerce Com |
 is no such blending.
 | The speaker ridiculed the objection that under the rate bill the Interstate | Commerce Commission would have the
 right to change all the railroad rates throughout the country, saying that the fact that the bill provides that no change can be made except upon com plaint Is sufficient reply.
 Mir. Rayner replied to Mir. Foraker's l argument that the rate making power applies to differentials under the con- stitutional provision that no preference | | shall be given the ports of one state | over those of another Asserting that | | the terms "discriminations" and diff |
 ferentials" have been confused he add l ed:
 This present enactment, entirely | | ignoring the provisions of the Esch- |
 Townsend bill in the last Congress, re- jecting the recommendations of the h. |
 terstate Commerce Commission, and |
 disregarding the original recommenda-
 tions of the President. absolutely de- prives the commission from fixing or | establishing minimum rates, and there | fore unless to exercise an arbitrary |
 power by lowering a perfectly reason
 able rate, 1t gives 1t no Jurisdiction | whatever over differentIals and no pow |
 CT to control the rates to competitive |
 markets.
 T know that the senator from Ohio | claims and has argued that this bill | eonfers the right upon the commission l
 to adjust differentials. say that it | gives the commission no such power I | deny that upon any construction that |
 can be put upon this language there !
 Is any power whatever in the commis-
 sion to adjust relative rates and strike
 the proper proportions between them.
 The ports of the United States there
 fore are not within the Jurisdiction of
 the Hepburn act If there is a differ ential between different ports upon diff ferent lines of railroads, there is no pro-
 vision of this measure that invests the commission with the right to change it."
 He stated that by the skilIful ex- animation of witnesses before the Sen ate committee on Interstate Commerce. MT. Clapp had developed the fact that in practically every case in which the commission has suggested a rate under the existing law, the suggestion had been adopted by the railroads. He urged that there should be no objection to taking the one step in advance which the pending bill takes. He declared his satisfaction with the bill as 1t pass ed the Houe and added. Tt may re- duire some slight changes in it's phraseology but its substantial provisions meets with my approval have no fear or anxiety not the slight est that the commission will perpe- trate any act of injustice under this measure and I believe that the power of the courts under the fifth amend ment Is ample to protect the property of the carriers. If the Senate. how