Truth. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1901-1908, 1906-03-17

eNllS lHnpuJeu 10 Jne exlSJlnS system OF
railway management. That is to say,
he believes in the court plan, as contra
distinguished from the plan of rate
making by a commission, not alone be-
cause the former is much simpler,
more expeditions, and less costly to
the shipper, but because it avoids all
legal and constitution questions,
whereas the rate-making plan set forth
in the Hepburn-Tillman bill is certain
to encounter constitutional objections
of a weighty and probably fatal char
acter.
Concerning the right of Congress to
make rates, the Senator conceded that
the United States Supreme Court had
never yet passed on that question, but
he pointed out that many eminent law
yers are of the opinion that the Court
will hold, when it has to decide that
question, that Congress possesses no
such power. 1t is, manifestly, impos-
ksible for Congress to fix by statute all
the rate for interstate commerce. 1t
would have to resort to some plan I'M
| der which it could avail itself of the
help of some kind of board, commits
sion, tribunal or agency. In under
taking to do this, however, it would
have to take heed lest it should dele
gate legislative authority, and thus
make it's effort unconstitutional and
unavailing, for it is beyond doubt un-
constitutional for Congress to delegate
| Legislative powers. Even If the United
States Supreme Court should hold that
Congress has the power to fix rates for
railways, that power could only be util-
lied under some such statutes as those
enacted by the Legislatures of Iowa
and Wisconsin, when in 1873 and 1874
they made laws classifying railroads
according to earnings, and providing
| that the officials chosen to execute said
| laws should, taking the classification
as basis, determine by computation
what statutory rates should apply. The
function delegated to such officials
might fairly be described as admins
trative, not legislative. Later in his
speech, Mr. Foraker challenged con-
tradiction of his averment that the en-
actment of the Hepburn-Tillman bill
would contravene the ninth section of
the first article of the Federal Consti- |
tuition, which prohibits a preference by
Congress of the ports of one State over
those of another State. If Congress |
shall invest the Interstate Commerce
COMMISSION WIFI lne power 10 MAKE |
rates for railways, that power must be |
exercised subject to the prohibition Of
the Constitution, to which we have |
just referred. The whole system of
differentials, therefore, would have to
be abandoned. Not only would the
port of Boston be closed, but many
other ports would be most seriously |
affected. The general business that
could be taken as well to one port as
another, under the then existing regu
lations, would inevitably be concen-
trated at the port most favored by nat |
ural and artificial conditions.
Concluding his speech, Mr.. Foraker |
said that he had not found 1t easy or
agreeable to differ with the President, |
who, for the time being was the head |
not only of the nation, but also of the
political party to which he, as a Sen
ator, was proud to belong. Believing |
that the welfare of the nation is bene- |
flcially affected by the supremacy OF |
Republican policies, the Ohio Senator |
thinks that every man who believes in |
those policies should do all in his pow
err to secure unity of action in his |
party, and to that end should be will |
ing to make concessions in minor mat |
ters. When questions arise, however, |
of such commanding Importance as