The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-11-03

sion Assumes To BE Interpreter OF
the Law, Function That Properly
Belongs To the Supreme Court
Real Purpose of Measure.
why did John Redmond write that
letter. asked a friend of the chair
man of the Public Service Commits
sion.
Because he is John Redmond"
was. the reply, and the reply seemed
TO be satisfactory, for Mr.. Redmond
has reputation among his friends of
being a bull in q china shop, with a
capacity and a propensity for doing
the wrong thing at the right time.
Mr.. Redmond is a lawyer of unus-
ual ability, man of unquestioned in
1egrity, and as Public Service COM
missioner has rendered valuable SER
vice to the State. He is not only in
corruptibly honest hut above suspicion
OF anything else, though his impul-
siveness sometimes makes him appear
in wrong light The newspapers OF
the State have often given Mr.. Red
mond ample credit for his honesty
aud his services and have freely eX-
pressed their faith in him.
Only Real Opposition.
His letter to Newman X. Chaffee,
chairman of the Railroad Committee
OF the House, is the only opposl-
ton that has appeared to the bill au-s
thorizing the exchange of railroad
mileage for newspaper advertising,
and no discussion of that letter or ar
gument based thereon can be consld-
cred an attack of Mr.. Redmond. The
letter is as follows:
Referring to House Dill No. 6, au-
thorizing railroads to pay for adver-
Using with mileage books, which bill,
as ! understand it, is referred to the
committee on railroads of which you
are chairman, wish to give you, and
through you the committee on rail-
roads, my views in the matter.
This same effort was unsuccess-
fully made at the last Legislature. At
that time | characterized the meas
ure as vicious, and | am still OF that
opinion; and my associates are also
opposed to the measure"
His Personal Statement.
Mr.. Redmond does not claim that
TIE letter states the views OF his as
socaties, though they are opposed 10
the measure. 1t states his views and
therefore it is considered his person.
al statement, not statement OF the
commission He proceeds with his on
jectionS thus:
y. The existing statutes regulating !
railroads were chiefly designed to
prevent discrimination in favor OF |
shippers and passengers, and to
place every person on an equal foot |
ing in respect of the most essential
element of our commercial life, trans
portation. The spirit of all OF the eX-
listing law, including the requirement !
that railroads shall publish their
tariffs and also file same with TINS
Commission, contemplates that those |
rates shall be paid in cash. Our law
was copied from the federal statute, |
and the Interstate Commerce Commits |
sion has construed that statute TO re-
nuire all payments for transportation |
10 be in cash.
Commissioner Ruling.
we have ruled that, although our |
statute does not in terms prohibit |
the taking OF advertising in payment
tor transportation, yet it's spirit does
that. and so it would be illegal Tor /
the railroads to pay for advertising |
IN mileages; hence this bill, and the
loo / n c M N
There will be no dispute OF the de-
STABILITY of preventing discrimina"
tim and placing all patrons OF
railroad on an equal footing, and in
most cases it may appear desirable
hat payment should be made in cash.
E,,t the bill TO which be refers pro-
vides that the price of the advertis- |
ing shall be the regular publlshed |
card rates OF the newspaper. That u.s.
A. mileage book having flXed ana de-
termined and known value shall De
exchanged for something that mas a |
known price Such transaction as
is proposed is equivalent to cash !
transaction.
Assumes TO BE Interpreter.
we nave ruled, says NIL i'0"
rnond, that 1t would be illegal
That is, the chairman of the PUBIC !
Service Commission assumes to be
the interpreter of the law, a tuhc-
zion that properly belongs to the SUI
creme Court, Senator Powell, VINO
came to Mr.. Redmonds defense at the
committee hearing last week, eN-
pressed the opinion that there was no
thing in the statute to prevent such
transaction, without any 1nrther
authority from the Legislature. But
the commission has large 1urisdlc-
ton over railroad operation and the
railroads do not care to place them
selves in any hostile position, so they
accent the ruling of the commission
There is, therefore, no way In whlch
the newspapers can bring test case
before the Supreme Court, and TINS
bill is introduced to secure a reversal
of the commissions ruling ana the
restoration of a privilege that existed
hot