The Norfolk weekly news-journal., 1910-01-14

such filing, no proceeding can be taken
to investigate the reasonabeness of
such proposed change until after II
becomes operative. on the other hand,
if the commission shall make an order
finding that an existing rate is eN-
Cessive and directing ii to he reduced
the carrier may by proceedings in
the courts, stay the operations of such
order or reduction for months and
even years.
To investigate Rates In Advance.
1t has, therefore, been suggested
thGt the commission be empowered
whenever a proposed increase in rates
! is fled at once to enter urOn an in.
vestigation of the reasonableness of
! the increase and to make an order
/ postroning the effective date of such
an increase until after such investi-
cation shall be completed. TO this
much objection has been made on
| the part of the carriers. They con
| tend that this would be, in effect, to
| take from the owners of the railroads
| the management of their property.
and to clothe the interstate commerce
commission with the original rate-mak-
ing power a policy which was much
discussed at the time of the passage of
the Hepburn act, in 1906 and which
| was then, and has always been dis
tinCtly rejected and, in reply to the
| suggestion that they are able by re.
sorting to the courts to stay the taking
effect of the order of the commission
until its reaSonablencss shall have
been investigated by the courts, where
as the people are deprived of any
such remedy with respect to action
by the carriers, they point to the pro
vision of the interstate commerce act
providing for restitution to the ship
perS by carriers of excessive rates
charged in cases where the order OF
the commission reducing such rates
are affirmed. 1t may be doubted how
effective this remedy is.
Experience has shown that many
perhaps most, shippers do not resort
to proceedings to recover the eXces
sive rates which they may have been
required to pay, for the simple reason
that they have added the rates paid
to the cost of the goods and thus en-
HANGED the price thereof to their Gus.
toners, that the public has paid the
bill. On the other hand, the immense
volume of transportation charges, the
!; great number of separate tariffs filed
annually with the interstate commerce
: commission, amounting to almost 200.
600, and the impossbility of any com
mission supervising the making of tar
, ifs in advance of their becoming eff
fective on every transportation line
| within the United States to the extent
| that would be necessary if their active
: concurrence were required in the max
, ing of every tariff, has satisfied me
that this power, if granted. should be
| conferred in very limited and re
| stricted form.
Power to Stay Rate Increases.
| therefore recommend that the in
terstate commerce commission be EN-
powered, whenever any proposed in
crease of rates is filed, at once, eitheI
on complaint or of its own motion
to enter upon an investigation into
the reasonableness of such change
: and that it further be empowered, il
its discretion, to postpone the effec
tive date of such proposed increase
for a period not exceeding sixty day!
beyond the date when such rate would
take effect.
The claim is very earnestly advanced
r by some large associations of shippers
f that shippers of freight should be EN-
, powered to direct the route over which
| their shipments shall pass to destina
= ton and in this connection it has beef
t urged that the provisions of section
$ 10 of the interstate commerce act
| which now empowers the commission
: after hearing on complaint, to estab
? fish through routes and maximum
joint rates to be charged, etc, whel
S no reasonable or satisfactory through
route shall have been already estab
3 lished, be amended so as to empowe
t the commission to take such action
/ even when one existing reasonable ant
Y satisfactory route already exists, if i
r be possible to establish additions
I routes. This seems to me to be
g reasonable provision.
The republican platform of 1908 de
= clared in favor of amending the inter
r state commerce law, but so as Away
Y to maintain the principle of competi
= ton between naturally competing line
T. and avoiding the common control O
f such lines by any means whatsoever
S One of the most potent means of eX
5 ercising such control has been through
|, the holding of stock of one railroa,
e company by another company ownin
> a competing line. This condition ha
e power conferred by the laws of man
t states, and to attempt now to suddenl,
l. reverse that policy so far as it affect
!. the ownership of stocks heretofore s.
acquired would be to inflict a grievou
e injury, not only upon the corporation
[ affected, but on the investment holdin
e public. | recommend, however, tina
the law be amended so to provide tina
= on and after its passage no railroad
: company subject to the interstate CON
Y merce act shall, directly or indirectly
n acquire any interests of any kind il
J. capital stock, or purchase any raj
n road of any other corporation whicl
e completes with its respecting bushes
a to which the interstate commerce ac
/. applies But especially for the pre-
4 lection of the minority stakeholder
?. in securing to them the best marke
g for their stock, recommend that sucl
v prohibition be coupled with a pre-
r vision that it shall not operate to pre-
p vent any corporation which, at tn
4 date of the passage of such act, shall
Q own not less than one-half of the en-
q tire issued and outstanding capita
ctn Nf In,