The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-01-08


making power-a policy which was much
discussed at the time of the passage of
the Hepburn act, in 1905-o6. and which
was then and has always been distinctly
rejected; and in reply to the suggestion
that they are able, by resorting to the
courts, to stay the taking effect of the
order of the commission until its reason
ableness shall have been investigated by
the courts-whereas the people are de-
prtved of any such remedy with respect
to action by the carriers-they point to the
/ provision of the interstate commerce COM
mission, providing for restitution to the
shippers by carriers of excessive rates
charged IN case where the order of the
commission reducing such rates are af-
frmed. 1t may be doubted how effective
j this remedy really is.
Supervision of Tariffs.
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 amount of transport
tation charges, the great number of sep
arate tariffs filed annually with the inter-
state commerce commission, amounting to
almost 10000, and the impossibility of
any commission supervising the making
of tariffs in advance of their becoming
effective on every transportation line
within the United States. to the extent
that would be necessary II their active
occurrence were required in the making
of every tariff, has satisfied me that this
power, II granted, should be conferred in
/ very limited and restricted form.
| 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 motion, to enter upon an
investigation into the reasonableness of
such change, and that it be further en-
powered, in its discretion, to postpone
the effective date of such proposed in
crease for a period not exceeding 50 days
beyond the date when such rate would
take effect.
If. within this time II shall determine
that such increase Is unreasonable it may
then. by its order either forbid the in
crease at all, or fix the maximum be-
yond which 1t shall not be made If, on
the other hand, at the expiration of this
4 time, the commission shall not have COM
pleted it's investigation, then the rate
shall take effect precisely as 1t would
under the existing law, and the COM
mission may contine it's Investigation
with such results as might be realized I'M
der the law as it now stands
Route of Shipment.
The claim is very earnestly advanced
by some large associations of shippers
that shippers of freight should be empow-
cred to direct the route over which their
/ shipments should pass to destination, and
in has
the provisions of section 10 of the inter-
state commerce act, which now empowers
the commission. after hearing on com
plant, to establish through routes and
maximum joint rates to be charged, etc,
| when no reasonable or satisfactory
through route shall have been already
established, be amended so as to en-
power the commission to take such action,
even when one existing reasonable and
satisfactory route already exists If it he
possible, to establish additional routes.
This seems to me to be q reasonable pro-
vision. / know of no reason why a ship
per should not have the right to elect
between two or more established through
| routes to which the initial carrier may be
party, and to require his shipments to
be transported to destination over such
OF such routes as he may designate for
that purpose, subject, however, in the ex-
ercise of this right, to such reasonable
regulations as the interstate commerce
commission may prescribe.
The republican platform of 1908 declared
| in favor of amending the Interstate COM
merce law, but so as always to maintain
| the principle of competing between nat
/ ural competing lines and avoiding the
! common control Of such lines by any
means whatsoever. One of the most DO
tent means of exercising such control has
been through the holding of stock of one
railroad company by another company
owning competing line. This condition
has grown up under express legislative
power conferred by the laws of manv
states and to attempt now to suddenly
reverse that policy SO far as it affects the
ownership of stocks heretofore SO ac-
quired would be to infct grievous in
justice not only upon the corporations af-
fected, but upon large body of the in
vestment holding public.
Ownership of Stock.
/, however, recommend that the Ia VI
shall be amended so as to provide that
from and after the date of its passage nc
railroad company subject to the interstate
commerce act shall, directly or Indirectly
acquire any interest of any kind in can
ital stock or purchase or lease any rail-
road or any other corporation which COM
petes with 1t respecting business to which
the interstate commerce act applies.
J But especially for the protection of the
minority stockholders in securing to them
the best market for their stock, I recon-
mend that such prohibition be coupled
with a proviso that 1t shall not operate to
prevent any corporation which at the date
of the passage of such act shall own no,
less than one-half of the entire issues nc
outstanding capital stock of any othe,
railroad company from acquiring all OF
the remainder OF such stock; nor to pro
hibit any railroad company, which at the
! date of the enactment OF the law. i.
operating railroad OF any other corpora
ton under lease executed for term O,
not less than 25 years. from acquiring tn.
revisionary ownership Of the den1ised rail
road; but that such provisions shall no
operate to authorize or validate the &C
QUESTION, through stock ownership OF
otherwise of a competing line. or interes
therein, In violation Of the antitrust O
any other law.
Over-Issue Of Stock.