New-York tribune., 1906-04-13
FORAKER ON RATE BILL.
DISCUSSES AMENDMENT
Calls Relie5c Clause IN House Bill
Cheat and Humbug."

washington. April 12.-After brief speech
=, Mr Latimer in support of the House Rail
-o.5 Rate bill Mr. Foraker to-day took the
s,or on the measure and consumed practically
u NJ the rems inder of the days session of the
c.rsre He spent some time in the discussion
!, come Of the amendments he has suggested to
he hill and then entered upon the considera ton
= ,be entire question Of railroad rate regula-
10, urging again the unconstitutionality of the
.,snr hill from various points of view He
IS frequently interrupted by other Senators
A. Lodge spoke briefly in support of the prac-
.t.s ~ granting lower rates on goods intended
Car export than on those used in domestic con-
Sumption
NJ Foraker discussed his amendment giving
,,-nplainants The alternative of taking their
80 INTO The courts in preference to the Inter
-. commerce Commission. In this connection
;. declared that The pending bill was not salts
s,c,o-v 10 any one, and that if not amended II
,o,l5 present many constitutional difficulties.
These difficulties We're enumerated at length.
-. ,o- 50 elahorately as on the occasion Of his
-, sneecb on the subject. Among these were
tose as 10 whether Congress has the power to
- rates and il il has. whether Il is not dele
eating it, power 10 the Interstate commission.
He had he said. been convinced that his bill
s-nnowerng the courts to take up complaints
n
+. Substitute for the House bill. He had. there
Gore decided 10 present the matter in the form
n an amendment TO the House bill in the hope
,hat il would rot ne rejected. He added that
his amendment was in the language of the third
section OF The Elkins law.
M Foraker eulogized the Elkins law as most
helpful 10 shippers. saying that it covered all
railroad evils except excessive rates.
M Dolliver made the point that experience
had not shown that the Elkins law had been
very generally invoked, and in reply MI Foraker
cited the Wichita case. alleging discrimination.
Nov Nr. President if anything else has
ever happened after the case was decided by ths
SUPREME Court / have failed 10 flnd it in tho
records" responded Mr.. Doliver. and the Ohio
Senator explained this circumstance by saying
that after the Supreme Court had sustained the
law the case was settled. He also cited other
cases and y hen Mr.. Doiver suggested that no
more had been accomplished than could have
been accomplished under the original Interstate
Commerce law Mr.. Foraker admitted that the
law had defects. the most important OF which
was the failure 10 provide a remedy against ex-
orbitant rates. For that matter. however. he
had not heard any complaints on the score of
rates until very recently So far as he had heard
the difficulty had been with rebates and discrim-
nations. and these he declared were quite fully
covered by The Elkins law.
In the present bill il had been found incon-
renient 10 deal with the wrongs Of unjust rela-
i've rates and the lack of uniform classifcatons
thus conhning the operation Of the bill almost
exclusively 10 excessive rates.
Mr Dolliver contended that Section 10 Of the
hil di6 deal with unjust discrimination. and he
said that If il failed go further il wa be
cause Of confidence n :ne much eulogized
Ekins law
10 REMEDY BETWEEN TWO ROADS.
Nj Adrich said that the bill did not afford
any remedy where two lines Of road We're in
voved in case Of discrimination. and Mr. Dol
Hrsr said that the bin dealt only with individual
roads He could moi, he said, conceive of. a
situation in which one Of two roads operating
between two given points could continuously
charge more than the other
Taking up the thread of his discourse, Mr..
Foraker urged that The omissions Of the House
bill We're due. as M Dolliver had said, TO the
general confidence in the Elkins act. He said
that one reason why there have not been more
complaints was found in The expense 10 shippers
very few Of whom We're willing to go 70 law
with railroad as antagonist. He proposed
that the government should assume the expenses
q the proceeding on behalf Of the shipper
Nr. Foraker discussed the question of court
review amendment Of The pending bill, saying
tlai Inc courts We're open 10 complaints of eX-
torilonate rates on the one hand and confis-
caiory rates on The other, but that between the
NO there was q wide range and that there
shollc be an opportunity for a judicial review
IN this class of cases
In reply 10 Mr.. Bacon ne said that when
case gets before court il viii become necessary
20 g into The entire case. He would have d
broad review.
Does the Senator mean that in the end the
courts instead OF The commission would in effect
in me rates." asked Mr.. Bacon. and Mr Foraker
seAied that such was his purpose. The only
eOes ion thaI court could decide would be as
70 whether given rate was just and reasonable.
NO court could decide whether any given rate
was colllscatory without going into all The facts
ne declared that "A greater cheat and humbug'
couIc LOT be conceived than the review sug-
-gested iH the bill
ne declared that if the power Of rate making
~ as conferred upon the commission Congress
.--lsl De- careful 10 confine the work Of the COM
MISSION 10 administrative service and he argued
aat as 11e bill stands il iutrustS legislative
judgment 20 The commission.
AT LoQ=0 spoke briefly on the distinction be-
."eeh NE rates on goods for domestic consurnp-
loh and on those intended for export saying
,-al there was no country that did not make
~" rates 10 control the markets.