The Washington times., 1911-05-18
INTERSTATECoMM COM.
MISSION POINTS WAY.

The heads of Washington's two
street railway companies, in state
ments published in The Times today,
mention the fact that the District of
Columbia already has a public utilities
board in the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. One of them says his COM
pany is satisfied" with the control
and regulation exercised by that body.
1t is true that the street railways
of Washington are theoretically under
the jurisdiction of the Interstate Com
merce Commission, but it is also true
that the Commission was granted but
little power to control and regulate
them by the statute of 1908. 1t is be-
cause of this condition and the fact
that the Commission is not organized
and equipped to regulate local street
car systems that a local board is now
demanded
Briefly, the experiment of placing
the street railway companies under
the Interstate Commerce Commission
has proved a failure. We don't ask
anybody to take our word for that,
either. Read what the Interstate Com
merce Commission itself said on the
subject in its report to Congress, after
it had had jurisdiction over the street
railway systems for one year:
Our experience with this problem
leads US 10 believe that it is advisa BILE
for the Congress to vest the duties i'm
posed oh the Commission by the act Of
more closely identified with the Dis
trict of Columbia. and which will be
enabled to give more immediate atten-
ton to the problem Of street car service
in this District than 1t is possible for
the Interstate Commerce Commission
to give
1t is doubtless within your knowledge
that the duties devolving upon the
members Of this Commission in hear
ing complaints under the act to regu-
late commerce necessitate the absence
from Washington of all the members
Of the Commission a great portion of
the year. There can be no adequate
enforcement of the requirements of the
absent from the city for long periods
of time and whose primary attention
necessarily must be devoted to prob
lens in no way intimately relating to
those arising under the District act.
Congress paid nd attention to this
sane recommendation, and at the end
of the second year Cast year, the
Commission, in its report, reiterated
it in these words:
We renew our recommendation of a
year ago that this commission be re-
lieved of the duty of supervising the
street railway service in the District
of Columbia. The Interstate Commerce
Commission is charged with the re-
sponsibility of regulating the great in
terstate carriers of the country, an
undertaking of sufficient magnitude to
demand all Of the time and personal
attention Of the members of the Com
mission.
The supervision Of a city's local
street car service presents a problem
essentially different in character and
entirely foreign to the purpose for
which this Commission was established.
Moreover, as pointed out in our last
report. the members of the Commission
must necessarily be absent from Wash
lngton for extended periods throughout
the year. thus rendering impossible
ditions which is believed to be neces-
sary II the intent of the act of May
q, 1908, is to be effectuated.
These considerations prompt us to
strongly urge that Congress place this
work and responsibility in some other
hands.
In view of these statements, can
you see a shadow of defense for street
railway opposition to local commits
sion based on the contention that the
service is already regulated by utili-
ties boardf ,a