The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-20
SAYS ELEINS LAW is ENOUGH
FORAKER INSISTS THAT HEP.
BURN Law rs USELESS. -
u,es Results Of suits and Prosecutions 60
show That Antt-Rebste Measure Covers
All the dsround-says Federal Rate
Waking Is Impossible Hits Roosevelt.

In spite of the intensely hot weather a
large audiences was present. The Senator
was enthusiastically greeted and his speech
was repeatedly applauded.
After answering some questions that had
been asked him Senator Foraker said:
Another call upon me to explain why I
yoted against the rate bill. ! have on a
number of occasions spoken az length on this
subject. For that reason ! may be pardoned
for speaking as concisely on this occasion as
can.
Undertaking TO speak in this way. ! voted
against the rate bill for three general rea-
SONS.
thought IL was unvise.
: thought il was unconstitutional
. thought IL was unnecessary.
thought IL was unwise because experience
la demonstrated that rate making is so
dNI,ult that only experts can do the work
satisfactorily. There are thousands Of these
,vperts constantly busy with this kind Of
work.
No seven of the most sk lied experts could
make rates for even one-quarter OF the coun-
Try. much less seven laymen. But IL Ia said
,htt the Interstate Commerce Commisslo on
u. not to take the initiative in rate making,
lut only To hear complaints against existing
rates. and when on investigation and hearing
Hrds that the rates complained of are I'M
T. asonable 1t shall have power to substitute
row rates. and that in consequence their
,ars making power will be limited and re-
s,ic,ed IN its scope and character.
The trouble with this contention is that IT.
- impossible TO deal with one rate without
an ecting many rates.
The rates on cotton goods from the mills
-, the south to Chicago and other cities In
me North are determined by the rates on
such goods froiS he mills Of New England,
The rates on c,,si from the mines Of Virginia
10 Chicag go and other Northern cities are
governed by the rates on coal from the Hook
me Valley. Pittsburg. Indiana and other coal
! lining districts.
Rates are everywhere interdependent and
hrerlaced. If you cha nRe one YOU AFFECT
IN of them and make innumerable other
changes necessary.
The work is not only too difficult. but il il
o., great. for any seven men. or any other
linitpd number Of men acting "a a commits
SION.
Tor this reason I thought it unwise to
confer the ratemaking power on the Inter
STATE Commerce Commission.
If u are to fix the rates that may be charged
We must determine how much revenue a
railroad shall he allowed to have. and this in
wolves how much il may eXpend for the ex-
pcrses of operation. what salaries IL shall
my to It's officials. what wages to it's en-
plovees. and how much II may expend for
h~etterments. for equipment, for maintenance
and for construction.
But whether. rs a matter Of policy. il was
wise or unwise to confer the rate making
power on the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion. II was to my mind clearly unconstitu-
nonal to do SO. Our fathers separated the
powers Of government into three depart
menrs. and II il an elementary proposition
that these departments are to be conducted
separately, Independently and coordinateiy
With respect to each other.
This proposition violates this Fundamental
idea. for under this provision the Interstate
commerce Commission is authorized TO sit
A. Judges to hear complaints. and condemn
rates as unreasonable. and then turn itself
into a legislative body to make and substi-
tute new rates to take the places OF those
condemned. and then turn itself into q body
Of high sherins to enforce and execute the
rates IL has made. In other words. II Is in-
vested under this provision with judicial
power. legislative power and executive power.
Ru, while may have beer mistaken "a to
the wisdom Of this legislation. and also as to
whether IL IL constitutional. and therefore
may have been in error as to both these
grounds Of objection, I Was not in error 40
10 the third ground I have mentioned. for
time has already vindicated the contention
that what was needed NJ the time when the
Hepburn law was parsed Vas not more
legislation. but only the enforcement Of the
laws Ne already had.
| pointed OUT in that debate over and over
again that two years prior thereto. in Feb
ruary. 1893. we had enacted the Elkins law.
aid that under its provisions a complete,
e,neditious and inexpensive remedy was az
iorded so far IA rebates and discrimination
we're concerned, no matter in what torn
or under what guise or By what method or
bv Whit device they might be given.
~ that time there was no record to which
2 cn,tId noint of F,rOoaadinO q mr. prOsacufiOn4
under the Elkins law as a foundation for nv
contention. Tor neither the President nor
the Attotnsy-rienerai, nor even the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, appeared to
know what might be done under that statute.
IN consequence there had been no attempt
g. enforce IT,.
As result, however, OF hammering away
unon that proposition dav after day for
Nceks and months the Department OF jus
tceFnilly commenced instituting proceedings
under that statute against railroads and
Shippers who were guilty OF violations Of its
provisions and Of the Interstate
law These proceedings were not commenced
rutiD IN the latter part OF 1905. but since then
Che courts have been kept busy with them.
ard day bv day we have been residing in the
Newspapers OF one successful suit or prose-
Cution after another until now. in looking
A. the record made under the Elkins law,
We End that AS a result OF Its enforcement a
long list of pernicious practices has been
broken ~.
It is not too much to say that IL is now
confessedly established that the courts havs
power under the Eikins law to prohibit any
kind Of a discrimination. or any kind OF q
rebate. or any kind OF a preference.
The interstate act was passed
10 1857, and the Hepburn rate law was passed
in June, 1905. while the Elkins law was passed
IN FEBRUARY. 1903.
Al examination OF what has been done
under these respective laws shows that under
the interstate commerce act In the twenty
years II has been In force there have been
all told hut eighty-two indictments. and under
these eighty-two indictments there have
been only sixteen convictions. Thirty-fve OF
them we're nolled. twenty-five we're quashed.
two oi them were dismissed. and In seven
cases he defendants we're acquitted.
u" total amount Of fines imposed under
ms act IN the whole twenty years 10 has been
IN force Is but $40. 800.
he Hepburn law went into effect in August,
l"t, but until this time. almost q year. there
has been no prosecution under II, and not
one dollar Of fines or any kind Of punish
mem has been imposed upon anybody.
l. Ayaf,.a. "a 1na - a,Aa ,.nAaH auanfV