The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-01-07

ing the nature of the damage.
 Under the existing law the inter- state commerce commission itself in itiates and defends litigation in the courts for the enforcement. or in the defense of it's orders and decrees. In my opinion, all litigation affecting the government should be under the direct control of the department of justice.
 Agreement on Rates.
 The subject of agreements between carriers with respect to rates has been often discussed in congress. Pooling arrangements, and agreements were condemned by the general sentiment of the people. and under the Sherman antitrust law any agreement between carriers operating in restraint of inter- state or international trade or com merce would be unlawful. I see no reason why agreements between car riers subject to the act specifying the classiications of freight and the rates, fares and charges for Transportation of passengers and freight which they may agree to establish should not be per mitted, provided copies of such agree ments be promptly filed with the com mission, but subject to all the pro visions of the interstate commerce act and subject to the right of any parties to such agreement to cancel it as to all or any of the agreed rates, fares, charges or classi fications by thirty days notice in writing to the other lrties and to the commission.
 Much complaint is made by shippers over the state of the law under which they are held bound to know the legal rate applicable to any proposed ship ment without. as matter of fact, having any certain means of actually ascertaining such rate. think that the law should provide that carrier, upon written request by an intending shipper should quote in writing the rate or charge applicable to the pro- posed shipment under any schedules or tariffs to which such carrier is a party and that if the party making such request shall suffer damage in sion to quote the proper rate or in con- sequence of misstatement of the rate the carrier shah be liable to penalty in some reasonable amount, say $250, to accrue to the United States and to be recovered in a civil action brought by the appropriate district attorney.
 Under the existing law the commis- sion can act elily with respect to an alleged excessive rate or unduly dis criminatory practice by A carrier on a complaint made by some individual affected thereby. l see no reason why the commission should not be author ized to .srct on its own initiative as well as upon the complaint of an individual and also that the com mission slinll be fully empowered be yond any question to pass upon the classifcations of commodities for pur- poses of fixing rates. in like manner as it may now do with respect to the maximum rate applicable to any trans portation.
 Public Pays increased Rates.
 Under the existing law the .olnmis- sion may not investigate an increase in rates until after it shall have be come effective On the other hand, if the commission shall make an order finding that an existing rate is excess i've and directing it to be reduced the carrier affected may by proceedings in the courts stay the operation of such order of reduction for months and even years. It has therefore been sug- gested that the commission should be empowered. whenever proposed increase in rates is filed, at once to en- ter upon an investigation of the req condolences of the increase and to make an order postponing the effective date of such increase until after such investigation shall 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 rail- roads the mana cement of their prop- critics and to clothe the interstate com merce commission with the original raj making power. a policy which was much discussed at the time of the pas- sage of the Hepburn act in 19O5-6 and which was then and has always been distinctly rejected.
 They point to the provision of the in terstate commerce act providing for restitution to the shippers by carriers of excessive rates charged in cases where the order of the commission re- ducing such rates are affirmed. It may be doubted how effective this remedy really is. Experience has shown that many, perhaps most. ship pers do not resort to proceedings to recover the excessive rates which they may have been required to pay, for the simple reason that they have add ed the rates paid to the cost of the | goods and thus enhanced the price thereof to their. customers and that the public has in effect paid the bill.
 impossible to Supervise Tariffs. On the other hand. the enormous vol ume of transportation charges. the great number of separate tariffs filed annually with the interstate commerce commission, amounting to almost 200. 900. and the impossibility of any com. mission 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 if their ac. tive concurrence were required in the making of every tariff have satisfied me that this power. if granted, should h<,r .,I f,,x 1; :4oI