The Washington times., 1910-05-28
PULLMAN COMPANY OPENS UP
BIG QUESTIONS.

The Pullman Company is taking no
chances of overlooking any possible de-
tense in its fight against the recent
order of the Interstate Commerce
Commission reducing rates for sleep
ing car berths. Out in Chicago it has
applied TO the United States circuit
court for an injunction. restraining
the commission from putting into eff
feet a series of reductions recently
ordered between points on the Great
Northern and the Northwestern. I'm
less It gets the Injunction the new
rates will become effective July l. If
they stand it is predicted they Will be
but the beginning of a general reduc-
ton of sleeping car rates-especially
OF uppert berth rates-aH over the
country.
The Pullman Company for the first
time goes to court on the question
whether a sleeping car company is a
common Garner, and, therefore, within
the jurisdiction of the Interstate Com
merce Commission. But this isn't the
end of its grievance, 1t raises spe-
officially the question whether, in Civ
ing the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion power to fix maximum rates.
Congress has delegated legislative
authority to the commission, and thereby
enacted a statute in violation of the
Federal Constitution. And these aren't
the only objections to the commits
sion's order. The Pullman Company
contends that, even if the commission
has authority to fix a maximum rate,
the maximum in these particular cases
Is 50 low as to be confscatOry, and
that the commission, therefore. has in
dulged in another violation of the
Constitution, by attempting to take
the Pullman COmpany's property
without due process of law.
This is a typical corporation defense
and was to have been expected from
such a concern as the Pullman Com
pany, which naturally frOwns upon
the possibility of having to give up to
mere travellers some part of the millions
of profits it has been earning for its
stockholders for a quarter of century.
In two respects, however, the defense
raises gravely important issues, upon
which there is a difference of opinion
and in the ultimate settlement of
which the usefulness of the commission
may be seriously concerned.
The first is the attack on the right
of the commission to make maximum
rates. This right has not vet been
fatty ruled upon by the United States
Supreme Court, for the reason that
the railroads have been lodging il in
their appeals to the courts from orders
of the commission. Why they have
lodged it is obvious. There is pending
in the Supreme Court, however. a rate
case from the United States circuit court
in California, In which this issue must
be squarely met and disposed of. The
circuit court, by an opinion of two to
one, declared that in giving the Inter
state Commerce Commission authority
TO make maximum rates Congress did
not violate the constitutional pro
vision which prohibits the delegation
of legislative authority.
Students of the American transpor-
tation problem predict that this opinion
will be upheld by the Supreme Court.
If it is, and if the final decision is
reached before the Pullman case gets
to the Supreme Court, the sleeping car
lawyers viii have to fall back on one
or the other OF both of their other
defenses.
The question whether sleeping car
companies are common carriers is an in
teresting one, but in the light of certain
other rulings by the Supreme Court it
seems on its face to offer weak de-
tense for the Pullman Company. The