New-York tribune., 1907-08-20
SECRETARY TAFT
STATES POLICIES.
Continued from arst paEe.

,- - .e --l1a+ z-as called the midnight tariff,
q railroad company gave favored shlppers az,
vance information Of contemplated reoucIoh
oe rate and Immediately restored tfe ola ,hlc
when these shippers had prohted by II 1hrg
haveP notice is now required OF any chahee III
Tho rates unless the commission. for good cause
raodifies the requirement
PFSFNBLES NATIONAL BANKING ACT
a~ain. the new law enables the commission
% ,,resrrihe a uniform system of accounting Tor
rasi-oads Under the old law the commission
oog,la cali for report Of the railroads ana
,nsy7I- ask questions of railroads. but 1t had no
way TO compel Il compliance with IT'S request.
and no penalty provided In the law Tor
failure 10 make the full report Under tne ne"
law ANNUAL reports must be mace under oaIn'
an6 Tenalf5es arc prescribed fer failure TO file
them with the commission within certain time
The commission can call for monthly or speciaI
reports Il may prescribe the bookkeeping
,,,ethoas Of the carrier. and has access al al
times through examiners TO the carriers BOOKS
The carrier is forbidden to keep any other books
than those prescribed. The commissions au-
.boritv r,r7er the new law over interstate COM
:hat of tsle Controller OF the Currency over ma
sionaI banks, which has the approval and con-
fidence Of the country
pArIRoaDs' ARGUMENTS AGAINST BILL,
Never before was there such united oppo-
xst,on hy the railroad interests to any national
1neas1l-e as they instituted against the rate BILL
a campaign Of education WAS entered @ Idol
sf.eecfaes were made in every part or the coun-
try and literature showered upon the mem
hers OF every community. with the hope OF con-
rincing the public that the bin was dangerous
innovation
The objections urged against ii were three:
First. II said to be un~lse because ~ :" "es -
g departure from the laissez faire doctrine OF
as little government as possible, and was a Ioie
step toward socialism and government o"hei
ship
PUBLIC OPINION CARRIED BILL
The revelations of infdelity to trust oblisa-
ticns in TIE insurance investigations In Ne"
YORK the fraudulent determinations in the tFal-
fic Of the coal carrying roads disclosed oE lne
inquiry made by the Interstate Commerce Coll..
mission the disclosure of secret reoales on oi
enormous scale granted the SlatIuSl9 9 NJ
Company By the railroads IN tHe iePoib VI
Garfield as Commissioner Of Corporations oNst-
came such q specious argument created d s'iote
public opinion in favcr of q radical remedy
against an dishonest corporate practices, ana
hold UP the hands Of those supporting the DILL
SECOND OBJECTION PROVED TOO MUCH
The second ground Of opposition was INA, a
tribunal like the commission was utterly , ullaple
10 FIX rates-that the fixing of rates was such
difficult matter that only the expert tra.llc mai
ayers of railroads were competent for the "oih'
that each rate was so connected Win ever 49, -
that il impossible for q booy OF ia. men =.
reach a safe and Just conclusion In respect 10
any one rate without creating hopeless con-
fusion. The argument proved eoc iueii- -
.be commission could not fix rates, then heltheI
81 nor 2 court could safely determine Whefher
rafe was unreasonable, for exactly the same ex-
rert knowledge was needed TO say that a ra1e
was unreasonable at TO say what was maximum
reasonable rate Indeed in the natural TnenIaI IA
process a maximum reasonable rate mus. pe
determined before declaring the rate IN questipii
unreasonable All this inevitably led 10 tiie
conclusion that there was no remedy either %
commission court against uIlreasonape 49, 49,
that the public was helpless and that the "loie
matter must still be left to the only experts; Oe
traffic managers OF the railroads. a.nous. ~ -
Was fhe dishonesty. discrimination ana injustice
of many OF them which had been the cause OF
the trouble Naturally. the argument mac weight
neither with Congress nor Win the puo"e-
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION INVALID
The third and final objection was that the law
was invalid in that Congress was thereby dele
x-o+irp its legislative power to another body,
and was violating the general consututionsi LII ~
that legislative power cannot be oeIesateu- me
,,,Ie has an exception There may be delegation
of legislative power where the purpose In IN"
original comforting Of the power can De SUD
re-1-eS only by its delegation TO an agent III Is
,5-,,i.-ad that the constitution gives Congress
the power to fix rates. Obviously however, ~
IS impossible for Congress as body 10 spena
the time and labor to do So III the power Is "
be exercised at all, practically II can be done
only through a tribunal or an agency hke ina
Of the Interstate Commerce Commission Hence
Congress NAV delegate the power under proper
legislative limitations and rules OF decision A
similar conclusion has been reached by a num-
her of state courts with reference TO the power
'f legislatures under state constitutions present
ing the same question. and while the case mas
not, With respect TO a federal commission peen
brought directly before the supreme Court OF
The United States, there is plain d1ctun IN one
decision in favor of the validity of such dele
cation Of legislative power.
SMALL VOTE AGAINST BILL.
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
OPPONENTS NOW PRAISE ELKINS BILL
The opponents of the measure continue TO de-
roInce IL bu. now, instead OF pointing out its
disastrous effect, they say II is d failure and
that in the year since its passage IL has not
helped q single shipper. They insist that the
only effective and an all-suf1icient law TO regu-
lafe railways is the Elkins act. passed in 1909
and that this is shown by the fact that all the
prosecutions in which convictions have been
had against railway companies ana Favored
SINNERS in the last two years have been un0er
the EIkins act, and not under the rate bill Let
rs look into the facts in regard TO this allega-
zion The chief prosecutions which have been
instituted have been criminal indictrnentS
against the Sugar Trust and the STANDARD on
Company and certain railways and their agents
snd 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
bxs
EIKINs BILL SAVED REBATERS FROM JAIL
II is true that these prosecutions were inst
tuted 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 as giving and receiving UNJUST ols-
elimination against the persons committing
them under the amendment TO the interstate
commerce act Of 1899 which the Elkins law
supulaafed The Elkins law really an
amendment 20 the interstate commerce act en-
iarging and making more effective the proceed
rl-e for prosecuting violations Of the prohibit
-;ons Of that law and describing them in moro
comprehensive form II gave greater latitude In
respect Of the district where the offence could
be prosecuted and il made the company neceS-
sariiy responsible in a fine for the act Of its
agents. without other proof of direct cofnracity
than the agency Under the 1889 amendment,
however the individuals convicted could have
been sent tO the penitentiary. whereas under the
Flkins act the punishment by Imprisonment
WIS taken away while the fine was increased.
The chief effect the Elkins law had on these
particular prosecutions which have been given