The Washington herald., 1907-08-20

rying roads disclosed by the Inquiry made
by the Interstate Commerce Commission,
and the disclosure Of secret rebates on
an enormous scale granted the Standard
Oil Company by the railroads in the re-
port OF Mr. Garfield, as Commissioner Of
Corporations. overcame such a specious
argument. created a strong public opinion
in favor Of a radical remedy against all
dishonest corporate practices, and held
up the hands of those supporting the bill
The second ground Of opposition was that
a tribunal like the commission was III
terly unable TO fly rates-thSt the fixing
OF rates was such a difficult matter that
only the expert traffic managers Of rail-
roads We're competent for the work; that
each rate was so connected with every
other that IL was impossible for a body
OF laymen 70 reach a safe and just con-
clusion In respect TO any one rate, with
out creating hopeless confusion. The ar
gument proved too much.
If the commission could not fix rates,
then neither It nor court could safely
determine whether a rate was unreason-
able, for exactly the same expert knowl-
edge was needed TO say that a rate was
unreasonable as to say what was MAXI
mum reasonable rate. Indeed, in the
natural mental process. maximum rea-
sonabie rate must be determined before
declaring the rate in question Unreason-
able. All this inevitably led 10 the con
clusion that there was no remedy either
by commission or court against unreasOn-
able rates. that the public was helpless,
and that the whole matter must stiU be
left 20 the only experts, the traffic mana
gers of the railroads, although it was
the dishonesty, discrimination, and injUs-
tice of many Of them which had been the
cause of the trouble. Naturally, the ar
gument had weight neither with Con-
gress nor with the public.
Objection 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 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 subserved only by its delegation to an
agent. 1t is admitted that the Constitution
gives Congress the power 70 fix rates
Obviously, however, it IS impossible for
Congress as a body to spend the time and
labor to do so.
If the power is to be exercised at all
practically it can be done only through
a tribunal or an agency like that of the
Interstate Commerce Commission. Hence
Congress may delegate the power under
proper legislative limitations and rules Of
decision. A similar conclusion has been
reached by a number Of State courts with
reference 10 the power of legislatures
under state constitutions presenting the
same question, and while the case has not
with respect TO a Federal commission.
been brought directly before the Supreme
Court of the United States. there is a.
plain dictum n one decision In favor OF
the validity of such delegation Of legis-
lative power
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 votes in the
Senate.
The opponents Of the measure continue
10 denounce it, but now instead Of point
ing out its disastrous effect they say it
IS u Adnult anu llldb III TIE year since
its passage, it has not helped a single
shipper They insist that the only ef-
fective and an all-sUfflcient law to regu-
late railways is the Elkins act passed IL
1903, and that this is shown by the fact
that all the prosecutions in which con-
yictions have been had against railway
companies and favored shippers in the
last Two years have been under the FL
kins 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 Standard 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
Saved Them from Jail.
It is true that these prosecutions were
instituted under the EIkins act, but it is
also true that had the Elkins bill never
been passed. the same acts could and
doubtless would have been prosecuted as
giving and receiving unjust discrimina-
tons against the persons committing