The sun., 1907-08-20


Of the railroads and might ask question
OF railroads. but 10 had no way to CONNIE
acompllancc with it's request, and no penalt,
was provided In the law for failure :,
mako the full report. Under the now Law
annual reports must be made under oath
and penalties are prescribed for failur,
TO file them with the commission within
q certain time. The commission can cal
Tor monthly or special reports. II may
prescribe the bookkeeping methods Of th'
carrier and has access at all times through
examiners TO the carriers books. The
carrier Ia forbidden To keep any other book
than those prescribed. The commission =
authority under the new law over inter
state commeroe railroads is thus in many
respects like that Of the Comptroller Of the
Currency over national banks, which has
the approval and confidence Of the country
GREAT OPPOSITION BY RAILRoADs-rHEIR
ARGUMENTS AGAINST BILL
Never before was there such n united
opposition by the railroad interests TO any
nauonai measure as they instituted against
the rate bill. campaign Of education
was entered upon. speeches were made in
every part OF the country, and literature
was showered upon the members Of every
community. with the hope OF convincing
the public that the bill was dangerous
| innovation
The objections urged against II were three
FIRST, It was said to be unwise because II
| was departure from the tdissez fare doc
trlne OF as little government as possible
ana was long step toward socialism and
Government ownership.
OUTRAGED PUBLIC OPINION CARRIED THE
The revelations Of infidelity to trust obli-
CATIONS in the insurance Investigations in
| New York. the fraudulent discrimination
IN the traffic Of the coal carrying roads dis
closed by the inquiry made by the Inter
state Commerce Commission and the dis
| closure OF secret rebates on an enormous
scale granted TO the Standard Oil Companv
! by the railroads in the report of Mr.. Gar
held, as Commissioner of Corporations
| oVercame such specious argument created
, a strong public opinion in favor of radical
remedy against all dishonest corporate
! practices, and held up the hands Of those
supporting the bill.
! SECOND -INCoMPETENcY OF COM
MISSION TO FIX RATEs--PRovED TOO MUCH
The second ground of opposition was that
a tribunal like the commission was utterly
unable TO fix rates-that the fixing of rate
was such a diffcult matter that only the
expert traffic managers of railroads were
competent for the work; that each rate
was 80 connected with every other that
II was impossible for body of laymen
10 reach safe and just conclusion in re-
!, spect to any one rate. without creating hope
less confusion. The argument proved TOO
much. III the commission could not fix
rates. then neither il nor a court could
safely determine whether a rate was un-
reasonable, for exactly the same expert
knowledge was needed to say that a rate
was unreasonable as to say what was a
maximum reasonable rate. Indeed in the
natural mental process. a maximum reason
able rate must be determined before de-
claring the rate in question unreasonable
All this inevitably led to the conclusion that
there was no remedy either by commits
SION or court against unreasonable rates,
that the public was helpless. and that the
whole matter must still be left TO the ONLY
experts. the traffic managers of the rail-
roads. although II was the dishonesty dis
crlmlnation and injustice of many of them
which had been the cause of the trouble.
Naturally the argument had weight neither
with Congress nor with the public
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJ ECTIoN BY RAILROADS
WITHOUT WEIGHT
The third and final objection was that
the law was invalid in that Congress- was
thereby delegating its legislative power
TO another body and was violating the
general constitutional RUE that delegated
power cannot be delegated The rlIlS has
an exception. There may he delegation
OF legislative power where the purpose in
the original comforting of the power can
be subserved only by its delegation TO an
agent. IL is admitted that the Constiti-
tion gives Congress the power to fix rates
Obviously, however. it Is impossible for
congress as a body TO spend. the time and
| abor TO do so. II the power is to be ex-
erclsed mt all. practically il can be done
only through tribunal or an agency like !
that of the Interstate Commerce Commits |
son. Hence Congress may delegate the !
power under proper legislative limitations !
and rules OF decision A similar conclu- |
sion has been reached by number of State !
courts with reference to the power of Legis- !
latures under State Constitutions present !
ing the same question. and while the case !
has not, with respect TO n Federal commits /
sion, been brought directly before the |
supreme Court OF the United States, there !
Is plain dictum in one decision in favor of /
the validity of such delegation OF legislative |
power.
SMALL VOTE AGAINST BILL
The opponents Of thes bin were not able !
with these objections to muster more than
negative votes in the House of RepresenJ
tatives. or votes in the Senate.
OPPONENTS OF RATE BILL now BmIrTLE IT /
AND PRAISE ELkINs BILL.
The opponents Of the measure continue
TO denounce it, but now. instead of pointing
out its disastrous effect, they say il is a fail.
lre and that in the year since it's passage
u has not helped single shipper. They
insist that the only effective and an all
sufficient law TO regulate railways is the
Elkins act, passed in 1909, and that this il
shown by the fact that all the prosecutions !
n which convictions have been had against
railway companies and favored shippers
III llie Id-t TWO years nave Deen 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 instituted have been criminal
indictments against the sugar trust and the
Sta ndard Oil Company and certain RAILWAYS
and their agents and officers for taking
and giving secret money rebates. They
could not have been brought under the
rate bill, because the acts prosecuted were
committed before the Passage of the rate
bill.
EFFECT or FLKINs BILL ON EXISTING CRIMI-
NAL PROSECUTIONS WAS TO SAVE RE-
BATE DIVERS AND TAKERS FROM JAIL
II is true that these prosecutions were
instituted under the Elkins act, but il is
also true that had the Eikins bill never
been passed the same acts could and
doubtless would have been prosecuted az
giving and receiving unjust determinations
against the persons committing them |
inder the amendment TO the Interstate |
commerce. act Of 1899, which the Elkins
aw supplanted. The Elkins law was
'eally an amendment TO the interstate !
act, enlarging and making
more effective the procedure for prosecut,
ng violations Of the prohibitions of that
aw and describing them in more compre-
lensive form. II gave greater latitude in |
pSDect of the dist ricf where the oHa,oa |