Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1911-09-29

by those who understand the opera
ton of the present law hat the Tegu-
Iative power of the interstate com
merce commission is sufficiently great
20 remedy generally the injustices to
shippers which gave rise to the de-
mand for legislation Except the in
PRODUCTION of q limitation as to the
power OF issuing stocks and bonds.
do not think il wise to add TO the pres
ent statutes.
The history of the operations of
the interstate commerce act is inter
esting and instructive. Soon after the
inception Of the statute the railroads
began 10 treat the interstate commerce.
commission quite cOntemptuously. The
system of unlawful rebates was very
widespread among them. and the neg
lect of the law was apparent 10 every
one interested in its operation. This
condition aroused the Indignation OF
the people and pressed their represen-
tatives on 10 further restrictions. In
deed ii gave rise 10 a prejudice
against the railroads from which they
have suffered in some cases unjustly.
Now, feel that they have become rec
onciled to the facts; they have come
TO recognize that the public insists up
on regulating their business and seeing
10 Il through the interstate commerce
commission that they do not violate
the law. l believe and hope that the
spirit of vindictiveness against these
great arteries of public commerce
which the indignation of the public
no r,4r~al1yr NJ Cd IN, thnfr
tatives is gradually disappearing.
ATTITUDE UNREASONABLE.
Occasionally one hears the COM
plant that there is no room for enter
prise among railroads; that there is
no inducement to further investment
and the extension Of their lines; that
somebody else is running their rail
roads for them: and that all hope Of
prosperous business in tTansp ortation
has disappeared. I think this attitude
is as unreasonable on the one hand as
that OF spite against railroad because
it is a railroad is on the other. We all
have to face the condition that the
public insists, and has right TO in
sist, upon the close regulation of rail-
roads in view OF past evils and of the
danger Of their recurrence in the fu-
ture if vigilance is abated, and that
nothing but such regulation will secure
the compliance with the law that the
public insists on having. That regula-
ton is not restrictive of wide discre-
ton in railroad management. and there
is and ought 10 be sufficient scope for
tho
business of the common carrier. and
for the securing of a reasonable profit
for the shareholders TO make the rail
road business as great field as ever
for business genius. All reforms have
not been secured in railroad manage
ment. This takes time. Many rates
are still unreasonable or discriminate
ing: but The point I am making is that
We now have effective and impartial
machinery in the present organization
and power Of the commission for at
fecting those reforms without addi-
t.onal restrictive legislation.
POSITION on lists.
Second With respect to the trusts.
I have elsewhere given my view of
what the decision of the supreme court
is. 1t in effect declares that the anti
trust statute punishcs every cOmbina-
ton or restraint of Interstate trade
that is intended and has the necessary
effect to control prices, exclude com
petition. and establish a partial or COM
plete monopoly of any interstate trade
in any merchandise, and hat bill OF
equity may be FLED against the offend
ing combination or corporation which
will lead 10 disiniegratiou of that com
bination, if found unlawful. and a di-
vision of it into a sufficient number of
parts under separa ownership TO in
sure competition and to maintain il by
the continuing force of perpetual in
junction against the resumption of the
unlawful bond and purpose Of the com .
Diners. Whether it will he possible 70
secure national incorporation act for
the closer supervision of those Corpor-
ations engaged in interstate trade, and
for their greater security when they
pursue business in accordance with
law. l am unable 10 say. because the
views of the present ma
jOrity in the lower house are presum-
ably against the increase of the fed
eral function with respect to corpora
tions. Be that as it may, the business /
community now knows or ought TO .
know, where il stands. The court de
clines 10 hold that competition is i'm /
possible under modern business condi-
tons. but it insists that it must be
given full opportunity for operation /
and that any combined effort affecting
interstate trade looking to its suppress
sion is contrary 10 law. In other words,
business must face the necessity of
throwing away the crutch of combina-
ton against competition in its further
progress. When this rule is recogniz-
ed. when the corporations that have
offended the law are disintegrated suf-
hciently 10 enable competition 10 have
full play, then there is no reason why
business should not so on unham
pered.
ACTIVITY CRITICIZED.
Ha sv