The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-20
SECRETARY TAFT
 DEFINES ISSUES
tContinued from Page one.l

t@VMAAUNS0 1A0xA IASc VAttf V rate. without creating hopeless confu- sion.
 The argument proved too much. If the commission could not fix rates then neither it nor a court could safely de- termtne whether rate was unreason- able, for exactly the same expert knowledge was needed to say that rate was unreasonable as to say what was maximum reasonable rate. In- deed, in the natural mental process, q maximum reasonable rate must be de- termined befofe declaring the rate in question unreasonable.
 "All this inevitably led to the con- clusion that there was no remedy either by commission or court against unreaspnable rates. that the pubic was helpless. and that the whole matter must still be left to the only experts. the .rafi4c managers of the railroads, al- though 1t was the dishonesty, discrim- ination ana injustice of many of tho m which had been the cause of the trou- ble. Naturally, the argument had weight neitaer witL Congress nor with
 sThe third and final objection was that the law was invalid in that Con- gress was thereby delegating it's legts- lative power to another body, and was yiolati. : the general constitutional rule that delegated power cannot be- delegated. The rule has an exception. There may be delegation of legislative power where the purpose in the original conferring of the power can be sub- served cr-iy by its delegation to an
 It is admitted that the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix rates. Obviously. however. it is impossible for sSa sSor I so do ssSy sS i # s sDsns Is % be exercised at all, practically 1t can be done only through tribunal or an agency like that of the Interstate Com merec Commission. Hence Congress legislative limitations and rules of de- cision. A similar conclusion has been reached by . number of State courts with reference to the power of legisla- lures under State constitutions present. ing the same question, and while the case has not. with respect to Federal commission. been brought directly be- fore the Supreme Court of the United States, there is a plain dictum In one decision in favor of the validity of such delegation of legislative power.
 Small Vote Aga st BflL
 s'The opponents of the bill were not able with these objections to muster more than seven negative votes in the House of Representatives., or three
 ssThe opponents of the measure con- tinue to denounce It, but Now instead of pointing out it's disastrous effect, they say it is failure and that in the q single shipper. They insist that the only effective and an all-sufficient law to regulate railways is the Elktns act, passed in 1908, and that this is shown by the fact that all the prosecutions in which convictions have been had against railway companies and favored shippers in the last two years, have been under the Elkins act, and not under the Rate Bill. Let us look into the facts in regard to this allegation. The chief prosecutions which have been tnRtituted have been criminal fndict- ments against the Sugar Trust and the Standard Oil Company, and certain rail- ways and their agents and officers for taking and giving money rebates. They could not have cen brought under the Rate Btll, because the acts prosecuted were committed before the passage of
 Tt is true that these prosecutions were instituted under the Eikins Act but 1t is also true that had the E1leins bills never been passed, the same acts could and doubtless would have been prosecuted as giving and receiving nn- just determinations against the persons committing them under the amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1889 which the Eikins law supplanted The Ellxina law was really an amendment 10 the Interstate Commerce Act en- Iarging and making more effective the procedure for prosecuting violations of the prohibitions of that law and describing them in more comprehensive K0rna. Jt gave greater latitude in respect of the district where the of the company necessarily responsible