The Mena weekly star., 1910-01-13

ner as |, may now do with respect to the maximum rate applicable to any trans portation.
 Existing Law PowerIess.
 Under the existing law the commission ,,av not Investigate an increase in rates un,il after 1t shall become effective and although one or more carriers may nie with the commission proposed Increase ln rates or change in ciassfications, or other alteration of the existing rates or classlhcations to become effective at the expiration of 30 days from such filing, no proceeding can be taken 10 investigate the reasonableness of such proposed change until after 1t becomes operative. On the other hand if the commission shall make an order finding that an ex- lsting rate Is excessive. and directing It to be reduced the carrier affected may hv proceedings in the courts, stay the operation of such order of reduction for months and even years. 1t has. mere fore. been suggested that the commis- sion should be empowered whenever proposed increase in rates Is hled. at once 10 enter upon an investigation or the reasonabieness Of the increase, and to make an order postponing the effec- tive date of such increase until after such investigation shalt 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 rnte-making power-a policy which was much discussed at the time of the passage Of the Hepburn act in Iq05-6, and which was then and has al- ways been distinctly rejected. and fin re- ply to the suggestion that they are able. by resortlng 10 the courts. to stay the taking effect of the order of the commls- sion until its 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 are affirmed. It 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
 
 hand. the enormous volume of transpor- tatlon charges. the great number of sep arate tariffs filed annually with the in- terstate commerce commission. amount ing to almost 200.000 and the impossibil- ity of any commission supervising the making Of tariffs in advance of their be- coming effective on every transportation line within the United States to the ex- tent that would be necessary if their ac- tive concurrence were required in the ma king of every tariff, has satisfied me that this power. if granted, should be con ferred in 6 very limited and restricted form.
 Commission Should Probe Change.
 therefore recommend that the inter- state commerce commission be empow- cred whenever any proposed increase of rates Is filed, at once, either on com plaint or of It's own motion, to enter upon an investigation into the reasonable ness of such change. and that 1t be fur ther empowered, in it's discretion, to postpone the effective date of such pro- posed Increase for a period not exceed ing GO days beyond the date when such rate would take effect If within this time 1t shall determine that such in- crease is unreasonable. it may then, by it's order, either forbid the increase al all, or hx the maximum beyond which 1t shall not be made If, on the othe, hand at the expiration of this time the commission shall not have completed 1t, investigation. then the rates shall take effect precisely as 1t would under the ex. isting law, and the commission may con. tinue it's investigation with such result, as might be realized under the law as fl now stands
 The claim is very earnestly advanced by some large associations of shipper, that shippers of freight should be em. powered to direct the route over which their shipments should pass to destina. uon' and in this connection 1t has beer urged that the provisions of section Il Of the interstate commerce act, which now empowers the commission, afte, hearing on complaint to establish through routes and maximum joint rate. to be charged, etc. when no reasonab bls or satisfactory through route shall have been already established, be amended ss as to empower the commission to take such action, even when one existing req. sonahle and satisfactory route aireaa, exists. if 1t be possible, to establish ad ditional routes. This seems to me tt be reasonable proposition. I know ol no reason why a shipper should noi have the right to elect between two O, more established through routes to whfcf the international carrier may be 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 req sonable regulations as the interstate com merce commission may prescribe
 The Republican platform of 1908 de. elared in favor Of amending the inter state commerce law, but so as always f, maintain the principle of competition be tween naturally competing lines, ant avoiding the common control of sucl lines hy any means whatever One o the most potent means of exercising sucl control has been through the holding or stock of one railroad company by an other company owning a competing line This condition has grown up under ex press legislative power conferred by ths laws of many states, and to attempt now 10 suddenly reverse that policy so fal as t affects the ownership Of stocks here tofore so acquired. would be to infiict grievous Injury. not only upon the cor, porations affected hut upon a large bod, of the investment holding public.
 Plan to End Rail Combine.
 l. 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. nt"Nt NonthfhNr att chdi, utFtttiy or m directly. acquire any interests of any kind in capital stock or purchase ol lease any railroad Of any other corpora ton which competes with lt respecting business to which the interstate com merce act applies. But especially for the protection Of the minority stockhold- CTS in securing to them the best market for ther stock, I recommend that such prohibition be coupled with provisc 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