Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1908-03-13
Where the Responsibility Rests.

Where the Responsibility Rests.
Governor Mead in !. late interview.
called thu attention of the public Ia
the fact that in l.'nI. at the time of
the first Legislative session during
H. present term. shortly prior 10 the
pa>>ag, If tho Railroad Commission
law thai! there ,Ni~trd grave doubt,
among lawyers Is - whether. under
tin state Constitution. u commission
,.ou'd b., created comforting such broad
power rs lining th,. rates fur trans
purtItion Of passengers and freight
orr railway lines operated within
liz boundaries 81 the state. II i Ia
be- regretted the Legislature did not
heed such warning and unfortunate
that the Governor did not use bis
constitutional prrrogative to call L
halt and Substitute a means of pro
rcdurc that would eliminate all doubt.
Ii he tld done 50. many thousands OF
dollars would have been saved TO the
taxpayers of oar commonwealth be-
sides paving the way for Il speedy So
luton of the problem by medium of
constitutional amendment.
1t is Il significant fact that the rail
road attorneys who attended that
Legislative session, in the interests
of their clients, did not fight this law
very strenuously. Is it not probable
that they fully realized its inherent
weakness? At the time it was as
serted in the lobby that no bill Civ
ing substantial relief would pass the
Senate. but it seems that a secOnda-
ry object was discovered in the posi-
bility of creating soft snaps for q
few of the party hulks who were
sailing under bare poles with the sig
mailbag flying as token of distress.
One object of that Legislature seemed
to have been to creaGe offices with big
salaries and perquisites, rather than
to serve the public welfare. And it
seems that party fealty had such a
firm hold upon the executive will as
to eradicate all qualms of conscience.
The clamor for relief by some en-
actment, in the campaign of 1904,
especially among the farmers of East
ern Washington, afforded good in
centive and excuse for the Commits
sion bill, and it was under these con-
ditions the present frail and harmless
Except for its extravaganza piece of
legislation, was conceived and born.
The defective offspring has wended
its weary way along for nearly four
years, the people hoping and expect
ing resulting benefits. The members
of the Commission drew their salaries,
and looked wise while telling the peO-
pie their benefits were largely
prospective" The things hoped for,
however, have not been realized, and
doubtless. under that law, never will
be; nevertheless, the disbursement of
public funds at the will of the Com
mission, has gone bravely on, and that
is the only real result that has fol-
lowed the past and present history OF
the Commission.
Now that Federal Judge HanfOrd
has emasculated this law regarding
the fixing of rates, its most virilc
provision, the public, especially the
shippers, have become especially in
terested in the final outcome. The
question now resolves itself into,
What must be done to save the pro-
moters of this knowingly, if not de-
signedly abortive law, within the Re-
publican camp, from criticism and
just opprobrium? The remedy ,"ill
be, of course, that of the schoOlboy-
silence; an attempt to hush the mat
ter up by telling the people the con-
troversy is before the Supreme Court
and will be settled by that body of
jurist. Settled, when and how?
Probably not before the next cleo
ton, in the ordinary course of events.
Then, if Judge Hanford's position is
sustained, it will take about five years
to get an amendment of the COnsti-
tuition and have it interpreted by the
State and Federal judiciaries, judg-
ing the future by the past. Mean
while, the railroad companies will fix
rates as may please them, and what
will the shippers do about it?
There is comment in certain quar-
tiers that the railroad lawyers out
classed and Outgeneraled the Railroad
Commission and its attorneys. How
ever that may be, the STANDARD is of
the opinion that the fault lies at the
inception of the law, in disregarding
a plainly written provision of the
Constitution, and the evidence seems
to show that it was willfully done.
Had the Gov ernor returned the bill
with an expression of his doubt as to
its validity, he would have been sub
sewing the main intent of the veto
power. Had he consulted the AttOr-
ney General, and had the matter thor
oughly canvassed and made it the
subject of a written message to the
Legislature, this serious dilemma
might never have arisen. After the
Executive had signed the bill, the
Attorney General was, of course. not
in Il position TO discredit the law.
He doubtless felt that it was his duty
To make the hest iirht uOSSihlp in