New-York tribune., 1909-10-03
MR.. 7Arr,s RAILROAD POLICY.

II is perhaps due TO the variety OF egis
iation which President Taft has outlined for
the coming session of Congress that the several
features have aroused so little serious discus
sion But Mr. Taft has himself declared that
his purpose in outlining his policies in detail
50 long in advance of his message to Congress
is 10 permit of general discussion which may
be advantageous to Congress in its cOnsidera-
lion of the important legislation he will urge,
and if those interested do not now give to the
subject the attention its importance demands
they will hardly be in position to complain
if, next winter. Congress assumes that there
exist no serious objections to the recommended
tons Of the Executive.
OF the legislative changes proposed by Mr..
Taft probably no others are so farreaching as
those which affect the railroads. He submits
that the law should be so changed TO give to
the Interstate Commerce Commission power TO
institute complaints against rates on its own
motion, to regulate ClasSifcatUns as completely
as rates. TO supervise and to suspend all reSu-
lations affecting shippers. and to supervise all
issues Of stocks and bonds He would forbid
railroads to acquire stock in competing roads
and compel them to dispose of any such stock
they may now bold He would authorize rail-
roads to enter into traffic agreements So long
as they did not involve pooling of business or
,
Interstate Commerce Commission. Finally, he
proposes an interstate commerce court 10 which
appeal from the decisions of the commission
would lie and from which, in turn, appeal
: would lie only TO the Supreme Court Of the
United States.
The principle of federal regulation of railroad
rates having been accepted. Mr.. Tafts PROPOSE
tion so to extend the power of :he Interstate
Commerce Commission as TO make such regu-
latlon complete and effective seems logical, to
say the least There was once, however, great
protest against the principle Of federal regu-
lation Of rates. Does the silence which has
greeted Mr. Taft's recommendations indicate
that the principle has proved much more ac-
ceptable TO The railroads than they expected:
4 Those who are in favor of carrying federal
supervision 10 a point where it shall control the
issuing of securities by railroads maintain that
! such supervision Is necessary part of securing
just rates to shippers. as otherwise the charges
/ for service must be heavy enough 10 include in
/ terest on large quantities Of water" but they
/ insist equally that such federal supervision will
! so far establish confidence in such securities
as are issued that the benefit even TO the rail
roads will be great. Are the railroads, profit
! ing by their experience with the supervision or
their rates, prepared to accept this view?
The creation of n special court TO review the
! decisions Of the commission will encounter OBJ
! lection from those opposed to the principle OF
, specializing the Judiciary. On the other hand,
! II has been contended that the slow processes of
| the courts minimize the usefulness of federal
| supervision of rates. and, according TO the Pres
| ident that contention has some force. Mr. Taft,
| who even as member of Mr.. Roosevelts Cabi-
net maintained that TO deny appeal to the courts
! from decisions of the commission would be un-
| constitutional, proposes 10 remedy the
| defect which Mr. Roosevelt and others foresaw
By expediting appeals, even TO the Supreme
! Court, and. 10 judge by the sentiment in Con
! gress when the rate law was passed it seems
| probable that one Of his recommendations
will be more promptly accepted.
To prevent railroads from acquiring stock In
competing lines might command popular ap-
proval but TO compel them to sell such stock
already in their possession might occasion seri-
GUS hardship. Nor is it altogether clear what
good end would be served in either case. II
| the railroads to be treated public utili
! ties above all things else: if they may not make
| rates. nor cassfcations regulations, and
may sell neither stocks nor bonds, without the
approval Of the Interstate Commerce COmmis-
/ sion, what difference does il make who owns
| their stock, or otherwise controls their man
! agement? There may be excellent reasons for
the prohibition which Mr. Taft proposes 1t
would be interesting TO hear them further eiu-
cidated.