Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-03-03
[By Associated Press.1

Washington, March 3.-Declaring the
administration railroad bill would inn
pair the efficiency Of the existing stat
utes, and the creation of a court of
commerce, which the measure involves,
would mean an expenditure wholly
unnecessary" Senators Cummins and
Clapp today submitted the minority re-
port of the senate interstate commerce
committee.
The report holds that the creation Of
the court would be fundamentally
wrong, and reminds the senate of the
tremendous influences which will in
evitably surround the selection Of such
tribunal" In the last three and half
years. the minority report asserts,
there. have been just twenty-six cases
in which such court would have had
jurisdiction. Pointing out some of(the
things the senator's think would make
the bill ineffective, they declare 1t
should include all corporations which
are common carriers. and that there is
nothing to prevent holding corpora
tion issuing all the stocks and bonds it
may please.
A Harmful Feature.
What Is termed the most COLLECTIONS
able and harmful feature is the pro-
posed departure from the method OF
defending suits brought by carriers to
make imperative the orders Of the
commission and minority senators
claim the section to govern consolida-
tion Of railway lines would permit wa
ter and rail routes to consolidate and
would allow railroads to buy up COM
petitive steamship lines. and that in
effect all railroads in the United States
could be merged under single cor
poration. provided they would be oper-
edrby electric power.
The Cummins and Clapp report
would amend the existing law to make
all holding corporations come. under
the jurisdiction of the interstate COM
merce commission, and would make the
term "common carrier" embrace all
corporations having a controlling in
terest In a common carrier.
Why They Object.
The minority report covering the
court section and other Objectionable
features follows:
"T'he members Of the committee
whose names are hereto signed do not
concur with the ajority of the COM
mittee In the recommendation that
senate bill 6737 pass without amend
ment. They beg to recommend the
QSLSSdS0 "a IA0 OlA1 WILL SCICCul SdIU0lfl.
ments, which are either submitted
herewith or herein mentioned. They
are Of the opinion that the bill as re-
ported by the committee, while 1t has
SOME excellent provisions, is as
whole not am advance in the regulation
OF Interstate commerce., but long step
backward: and the effect OF the bill, If
st becomes a law, will be not to further
restrain the power of common CARRIERS
but to seriously impair the efficiency
Of existing statutes. It furnishes COM
mon carriers new weapons, and 1t
weal1ens rather than strengthens those
heretofore given to the people for their
defense.
AS we view the matter, the court
and the expenditure it involves are
wholly Unnecessary. According to the
reports OF the interstate commerce
commission there arose between the
time the Hepburn act went into effect
in the middle Of the year 1906 and the
close Of the year 1909, a period of three
and one-laiI years, 26 cases, of which
tl1e court of commerce would have had
jurisdiction had It been in existence
during that time: that is to say, less
than eight cases per year. 1T seems
to us mdefensible to put upon the tax
payers the burden of maintaining such
q court under such circumstances. The
view We have taken is, we think, en-
phanjzed when 1t is remembered that
the jurisdiction of the courts over the
orders OF the commission, as inter-
preted by the last decision of the SUI
preme court of the United States in
interstate Commerce Commission VS..
Illinois Central Railroad, so narrows
the power of the courts that in the
future It may be safely asserted that
there will be fewer attacks upon these
orders than there have been in the
past. The suggestion that the institu
ton of the court of commerce will
bring uniformity into the decisions and
shat Il will speed the disposition OF
cases that may arise is without merit,
inasm1rch as the supreme court Is the
anal arbiter OF the law, and there Is
M substantial similarity in the facts
which the cases develop, nor in the past
has there been undue delay IN the trial