Truth. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1901-1908, 1906-02-10
SENATOR FORAKER ON GOVERN.
MENT RATE-MAKlNG FOR
RAILWAYS.

flexible, and certainly he is the most
eloquent, opponent of the presidents
railway policy in the upper house OF
the federal legislature. His views on
the subject have been expounded in
various ways and at divers times, but,
perhaps, they have never been more
clearly and cogently expressed than
in a pamphlet with which, doubtless,
senator's and representatives are ia
miliar, but which is relatively un.
known to the community at large
Conspicuous among the documents
brought together in this pamphlet are
an open letter addressed to Mr.. For
aker by the Receivers and Shippers
association of Cincinnati and the SEN
ator's reply. We should mention that
the Receivers and Shippers associa-
ton comprises nearly 800 of the larg-
est shippers in that city. In the letter
signed by their president, Mr.. r. II.
West, they made number of asser-
lions favorable to government rate
making and requested the senator to
answer series of questions. After
pointing out that Mr. Foraker was
known to have in mind a plan of rail
way legislation which, in his judg
ment, is better than the plan embod
led in the Esch-Townsend bill, and to
large extent reproduced in the Hep
burn bill, Mr.. West directs the SEN
ator's attention to the fact that, I'M
der the existing law the courts have
decided that, while it is permissible
for several lines to make joint
through rates, they are not required
to do so. Mr.. West asks whether, I'M
der the plan devised by Mr.. Foraker,
the carriers should be required to
make reasonable joint through rates,
and, if so, how? Then again, it, I'M
der Mr.. Foraker's plan it should be
determined that the rates from Gin
cinnati to Atlanta, Ga, were unrea.
sonably high and discriminatory, as
compared with the rates from Rich
mond, Va, to Atlanta, Ca, and the
carriers were required to make a re-
duction in the rate from Cincinnati,
what, inquired Mr.. West, would pre-
vent the carriers from Richmond, Va,
to Atlanta, from making a reduction
corresponding to that made from Gin
cinnati. Mr.. West also wanted to
learn whether, upon complaint being
filed and hearing given, and a par
ticular rate having been determined
to be unreasonably high and exces-
sive, or unduly discriminatory, it
would be possible, under Mr.. Fora
ker's plan, to substitute therefor
either a maximum, minimum, or abso-
lutte rate to be applied thereafter.
Now let us look at Mr.. Foraker's
reply. He began by reminding his
correspondent that in his speech at
Bellefontaine he expressed the belief
that there are many abuses and evils
to which shippers are now subjected,
and for which the law should afford a
speedy and effective remedy. He did
not believe, on the other hand, that
it would be effective or wise, or, in
short, anything but disastrous, to con-
fer the rate-making power on the in
ter-state commerce commission. The
difference therefore between the SEN
ator and the Cincinnati Association OF
Shippers was simply one as to what
should be the remedy for acknowl-
edged evils. Mr.. Foraker had said at
Bellefontaine that to take control of
the rate-maling power is to take
charge of the revenues of railroads,
and this means that the government
is to assume the responsibility not
only of determining what rate shall
be charged, but also, of necessity, how
much money railroad shall be al