The Washington herald., 1907-08-20

mission, and ] heartily concur in them.
They are plainly within the Federal juris-
/ diction under the interstate commerce
| clause I DO not think that in order to
accomplish a good which the Federal
government with its greater resources
and wider geographical reach can bring
about more quickly and efficiently, the
constitutional limits upon Federal action
should be blurred out or an undoubted
/ Federal power should be expanded by
doubtful construction into a field which
4 really belongs to the State. But the
right Of Congress to take any action, not
| confscatory, in the most rigid control
/ Of interstate commerce. cannot be denied.
Suggested by Consultations.
/ The measures taken and proposed are
radical, perhaps. viewed from the stand
/ point Of the laissez faire doctrinaire
whose ideas have been allowed to prevail
| In respect OF railroad management down
to the present; but no one can read the
report OF the commission on the history
Of the union of the Southern Pacific and
/ Union Pacific systems with the Illinois
Central system without trembling at tne
! enormous power that one man. by the
uncontrolled use of the stock and bond
issuing power of interstate railways un-
der State charters. has acquired In re-
spect % vital part of the country s
/ business and without looking for some
means Of remedying such n dangerous
Tendency which. If not stopped. Will lead
/ to the absorption OF all the railroads OF
the country into one hand.
The contention on behalf Of the rail-
roads, already noticed that such super
vision as the rate bill and these suggest
/ ed amendments afford is sociaiistic and
/ tends TO government ownership is ut
/ terly without basis. Efficient regula-
ton is the very anudote and prevent
/ i've of socialism and government owner
/ ship. The railroads. until now have
| been permitted to wieid without any real
/ control the enormously important fran
! chiss Of furnishing transportation 10 the
/ entire country. They have constructed
/ 229.o00 miles of read.
! In certain respects they have done a
marvellous work and have afforded trans
PoTtation at a cheaper rate. per ton, per
mile and per passenger, than in any
country In the world. They have. how
I ever, many OF them, shameiessly violated
/ the trUst obligation they have been un-
der to the public 0f furnishing equal IA
| cilities at the same price 10 all shippers.
/ The watering OF stock and bonds and the
0vercapitalization OF some Of them for
/ the profit Of their managers have pre-
Eentec the needed Improvement Of their
railroads in construction and equipment
/ The tremendous demand for increased
! facilities due 70 the enormous growth Of
/ business shows the inacequacv Of their
equipment and construction. While they
might not have been expected 20 meet in
/ fun such an extraordinary demand, the
obligations some Of them have assumed
/ In the form OF stocks and bonds leave no
doubt that had the money they repre-
/ sented been put into tie roads in good
| faith. the shortage OF cars and equipment
and inadequacy of rOadbed and track
would not be 50 great. They discharge a
public function. They have been weighed
/ in the balance and found wanting. The
remedy for the evils must be radical to
/ be effective. If il Is not so. then we may
| certainly expect that the movement to-
ward government ownership will become
/ a formidable one that cannot De stayed
I Government Ownership Objections.
/ I am opposed to government ownership;
First. because existing govern
ment railways are not managed
with either the efficiency or
ccoaOmy Of privately managed
roads and the rates charged are
not as low, and therefore not as
beneficial 10 the public;
Second. because it would in
vOIve an expenditure Of certainly
twelve billions Of dollars tn ac-
+ quire the Interstate railways and
/ the creation of an enormous ma
tfOnaI debt
Third. because it syOuid place I'm
the hands Of reckless Executive
a power of control over business
and politics that the imagination
can hardly conceive, aud would
/ expose our popular institutions
/ TO danger.
/ The supervision proposed need not ma
terially reduce the legitimate operation Of
individualism in railway enterprise II
Will. indeed limit the opportunity TO ac-
cumulatc enormous fortunes through
overcapitalization or secret rebates. but
I the legitimate profit which comes from
I close attention 10 operation. 10 efficiency
I OF service, and economy Ia details and
I from broad conceptions Of new methods
/ Of reducing cost without impairing the
service viii not be disturbed I'm the slight
est. There is no attempt 10 take away
/ the property Of the railway companies
/ there is no furnishing Of public money 10
the enterprise and no public officers are
required 70 administer the property There
/ is no more attempt in this law 20 make
transportation a government business
/ than there is in the national banking act
/ 10 making banking a government bust
ness.
Tha movement 20 ,,or,,r,sti,7, -, ;r,r-..,v
companies TO consolidate arose originally
/ from fear that the antitrust act forbade
/ them 10 make agreements as 10 uniform
tariffs. II they We're now permitted to
make such agreements subject 20 the ap-
/ proval of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission, such a tendency would lose much
/ OF its force. II Is impossible to prevent
competing railways from seeking TO make
/ their tariffs uniform in order TO prevent
I an unending and disastrous tariff war,
and though such agreements are against
1 the law. it is perfectly apparent that
1 tacit arrangements for uniformity exist.
These arrangements do not prevent the
/ operation OF competition, from time 20
! time. as one company finds that Il may
acquire new business without loss by a
reduction Of rate, and insists on it. but
| they do prevent tariff war. which helps
neither the public nor the railway by
violent fluctuations in rates.
AS the public now asserts the right to
fix the maximum rates. and thus to
eliminate one phase Of competition, II is
/ logical 10 permit an agreement on rates.
/ if approved by the Interstate Commerce
Commission the tribunal appointed to
/ fix rates The President and the COM
mission both recommend a provision per
mitting such agreements In this way,
there would be restored that respect for
law which many railroad men in the last
decade seem TO have lost Moreover.
every company under such a system