Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-04-10

NEGATIVE CRITICISM OF RATE BILL.
An extraordinary feature of the sen
ate debate on the Dolliver- Hepburn bill
is the failure of those who are recog-
nized as it's most positive opponents to
agree and put forth their chief objec-
tons in amendment form. Month after
month such opponents have busted
themselves with destructive criticism,
but they have so far persistently
avoided constructive cooperation.
At the outset Senator Foraker, ex-
pressing the legal view which embOdles
the substance of the extreme railroad
corporation opposition, made an elab-
crate argument the logical conclusion
of which denies the whole scheme of
rate control either by congress directly
or through the medium of any executive
commission But Senator Foraker him
self and the coterle of senators who re-
gard the subject from the same stand
point have perceived all the way
through that the passage of a regula-
ton measure is inevitable, and. along
with other senators who profess to
favor such a measure. have directed
their efforts TO magnify the faults of
the measure devised by the friends Of
the presidents policy with his encour-
agement.
The two points upon which the brunt
of attack has fallen are judicial review
of commisslon-fxed rates and their sus-
pension by judicial order pending APP
peal to the courts. Senators Foraker.
Culberson, Knox, Spooner, Bailey and
others including the very ablest law
yers in the senate. have elaborated at
great length constitutional arguments
against the rate bill on these two cap
ital points. some insisting that it is alb
cifically for court review and that pro-
vision prohibiting suspension Of rates by
court would be void, but most of them
holding that congress has power in one
| degree or another to define both appeal
from the commission and the enjoining
of its rates while appeal is being tried.
The bill was drawn in the form In
which It is before the senate and is de-
Tended by it's foremost friends, on the
ground. as is Familiarity known. that
the constitutional right of appeal to the
| courts exists Independent OF any spe-
cifc provision by congress therefor and
that the constitutional minimum of re-
view is all that should be allowed, since
judicial delays and incapacity to deal
effectively with the rate subject in its
length and breadth is one Of the great
est evils from which the public has suf-
fered.
The country has not failed to note
that these senatorial critics, while cry
| ing out so loudly and ingeniously
against what they assert should not be
in the bill as it stands, either refuse to
formulate or are incapable of formu-
lating a substitute provision that would
be free from objections. The impress
sion is deepening as this negative and
| destructive criticism is persisted in
that their hostility really goes to the
very essence OF the measure and that
they have no substitute for its chaI-
lenged features which they dared to
submit to the same thorough and DELHI
crate public judgment before which the
pending measure itself was fairly placed
at the very beginning of the session.
The friends of a great measure Of
public policy may properly and honestly
seek to perfect it. but only enemies and
that sort of weak-hearted friends who
are tools in the hands of enemies con-
fine their energies exclusively to mega
ton and destructive criticism.