New-York tribune., 1910-06-02
NOR 1 VALID OBJECTION,

I I
To the proceedings for q permanent
injunction restraining the Western rail
roads from putting into effect their pro
posed increases in freight rates the ob-
lection is made that they will afford no
test Of the reasona bleness of the ad-
vances II is true that although the
government alleges that The increases
are excessive and burdensome the i'm
por-tant issue in the present suit is net
the amount Of the rates bur the method
by which they were adopted. The court
may properly enough decline to pass
upon the difficult question Of the reason
ableness of the rates and issue 4 perma-
nent injunction. if one is to be issued,
solely on the ground that the law re-
earding the pooling Of rates as laid
down III the Trans Missouri Freight As
sociation case has been violated. Then,
say the obiectors. we shall have got no
where. for the real question so far as
the public is concerned is not whether
the rates are the result of an agreement
among the roads but whether they are
equitable or not.
All Of that is true enough without
being valid objection To the present
suit. 1T is 10 he regretted that the gov
ernment has TO proceed by indirection.
II would be well that the government
could test the really important question
which must. in some way. sooner or
later. he passed upon. namely, the rea-
sonableneSs of the rates. Moreover,
Il, 60, tI,r
combination which is perforce the basis
Of the attack is of Il reasonable and
necessary sort which ought to be per-
mitted by law. But the railroads them
selves, and hy these very rate advances
how 1T issue. are responsible for the de-
feat of a promising effort 10 make rate
agreements legal. The government had
no choice of methods of preventing what
are widely regarded as excessive in
creases in freight charges. burdensome
upon shippers and upon q public already
feeling severely the high cost Of living.
With the law as it is. il had either to
proceed under the Sherman act or allow
rates which according to the evidence in
its possession had been "unjuStIy and
Cppressiyely" increased. and which were
''unrea soma bic and arbitrary" to go into
effect without action on its part The
latter course. so long as il bad any
method of protecting the public from
these unreasonable and arbitrary" ad-
vanceS in rates was unthinkabie.
Nor is il certain. even if the advances
should be enjoined solely on the ground
that they are the result Of an illegal
agreement among The railroads, that the
country Will have got nowhere with
regard 10 the main question. Whatever
the basis Of the courts action. the pro
ceeding springs from the belief Of the
shippers and of the government that the
proposed rates are inequitabIe. The
question of their reasonableneSs will not
he kept in the background. even SHOULD
il not be the deciding one; and when
the subject of advancing rates comes to
be finally adjusted if these rates arc
cnjoined, il will have to bc adjusted in
:; different spirit from that in which the
present rates have been decided upon
and with a fuller consideration of all
the interests involved. Ultimately. there
fore. indirect as the route is. it promises
tc lead around 10 the real end in view.