Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1910-01-12

ner as It may now do with respect to the
maximum rate applicable to any trans
portation.
| Existing Law Powerless.
Under the existing law the commission
may not Investigate an increase in rates
until after 1t shall become effective; and
| although one or more carriers may file
| with the commission a proposed increase
IN rates or change in classifications, or
other alteration Of the existing rates or
| classifications, to become effective at the
expiration Of 80 days from such filing, no
proceeding. can be taken to investigate
the reasona bleness of such proposed
| change until after it becomes operative.
| On the other hand, il the commission
shall make an order finding that an ex-
listing rate is excessive, and directing 1t
to be reduced, the carrier affected may
by proceedings in the courts, stay the
operation Of such order Of reduction for
| months, and even years. 1t has, there
fore, been suggested that the commits
sion should be empowered whenever a
proposed increase in rates is filed, at
once to enter upon an investigation of
the reasonableness Of the increase, and
to make an order postponing the effec-
tive date of such increase until after
such investigation shall be completed. To
this much objection has been made on
the part Of carriers. They contend that
| this would be in effect to take from the
owners of the railroads the management
Of their properties and to clothe the in
terstate commerce commission with the
original rate-making poWer-a policy
| which was much discussed at the time
| Of the passage of the Hepburn act in
l9O5-6, and which was then and has al
ways been distinctly rejected; and in re-
ply to the suggestion that they are able,
| by resorting to the courts, to stay the
| taking effect OF the order of the commits
| sion until it's reasonableness 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 provisions Of
| the interstate commerce act providing for
| restitution to the shippers by carriers, of
excessive rates charged in cases where
| the order of the commission reducing
such rates affirmed. 1t may be doubt
| ed how effective this remedy really is.
Experience has shown that many, per-
| haps most shippers do not resort to pro-
| ceedings to recover the excessive 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 enhanced the price there
| of to their customers, and that the public
has in effect paid the bill. On the other
hand, the enormous volume Of transport
| tatlon charges, the great number of sep
arate tariffs filed annually with the in
| terstate commerce commission, amount
ing to almost 100000. and the impossible
ny or any commission supervising the
making Of tariffs in advance of their be-
coming effective on every TRANSFORMATION
line within the United States to the ex-
tent that would be necessary if their &C
tive concurrence were required in the ma
king Of every tariff, has satisfied me that
this power, if granted. should be con-
ferred in very limited and restricted
form.
! Commission Should Probe Change.
I therefore recommend that the inter-
state commerce commission be empow-
cred whenever any proposed increase Of
rates is filed, at once, either on COM
plant or of Its own motion, to enter
upon an investigation into the reasonable
ness OF such change, and that it be fur
ther empowered. in it's discretion, to
postpone the effective date of such pro-
posed increase for a period not exceed
| ing so days beyond the date when such
rate would take effect. If within this
| time it shall determine that such in
crease is unreasonable, it may then, by
its order, either forbid the increase at
ALL or nix the maximum beyond which
1t shall not be made. IT, on the other
hand' at the expiration of this time, the
commission shall not have completed it's
! investigation, then the rates shall take
erect precisely as it would under the ex-
| lstlns law, and the commission NAV con-
tlnue it's investigation with such results
as might be realized under the law as It
now stands
Inc claim is very earnestly advanced
ny some large associations of shippers
that shippers of freight should be en-
powered to direct the route over which
nnfc ~I~-
tlon' and in this connection it has been
urged that the provisions OF section Il
| OF the interstate commerce act. which
now empowers the commission. after
nearing on complaint. to establish
through routes and maximum Joint rates
| 10 De charged, etc, when no reasonable
| or satisfactory through route shall have
| been already established, be amended so
as to empower the commission to take
such action. even when one existing rea
! sonable and satisfactory route already
exists, If it be possible, to establish adj
| ditional routes. This seems to me tn
/ be reasonable proposition. I know of
| no reason why shipper should not
have the right to elect between two or
more established through routes to which
the international carrier may be a party.
and to require his shipment to be trans
| ported by such routes as he may desig-
nate for that purpose, subject, however.
in the exercise Of this right to such rea-
sonable regulations as the interstate COM
| MERGE commission may prescribe
| me Republican platform of 1908 de-
c1ared in favor of amending the inter-
state commerce law. but so as always to
maintain the principle Of competition be-
tween naturally competing lines, and
avoiding the common control of such
lines by any means whatever One of
the most potent means of exercising such
control has been through the holding of
stock of one railroad company by an
| other company owning competing line.
This condition has grown up under ex-
press legislative power conferred by the
| laws of many states, and~to attempt now
to suddenly reverse that policy so far
as 1T affects the ownership of stocks here
! tofore SO acquired, would be to inf1ict
| grievous injury. not only upon the cor
porations affected but upon a large BODY
of the investment holding public.
Plan to End Rail Combine.
| I, however, recommend that the law
| shall be amended so as to provide that
| from and after the date of it's passage
no railroad company subject to the inter-
state commerce act shall, directly or in.
| kind in capital stock or purchase or
| lease any railroad of any other corpora
ton which completes with it respecting
business to which the interstate com
merce act applies But especially for
the protection Of the minority stockhold-
ers in securing to them the best market
| for Their stock, I recommend that such
| prohibition be coupled with a proviso
| that it shall not operate to prevent any
| corporation which, at the date of passage
| of such act. shall own not less than one
| half of the entire issued and outstanding
| capital stock of any other railroad COM
pany, from acquiring all or the remain
! der of such stock; nor to prohibit any
railroad company which at the date Of
| the enactment of the law is operating a