The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-12-22
COMMISSION DEFENDS ITSELF

The Interstate Commerce CommiS'
siou, ia its report TO Congress, makes j
vigorous defense OF its rulings in the
so.callcd Rocky Mountain rate cases.
It's report is practically an arraigu.
meut of the Commerce Court for over
ruling the commission s decision; aud
il gives very clear and very strong re-
sons for the conclusions arrived at by
the commission In these cases Tho
Commerce Court. IN ovcrruliug the dc.
cisiou of thc commission in those eases
was clearly wrong. as set forth in this
commission report for cit is a waste
Of transportation, aud therefore uncco-
uomical and wrong, To maintain a sys-
tcm of tariffs which are expressly in.
tended TO develop the Pacific coast
cities and TO arrest the development of
the interior points. >
The commission proceeds further 10
say that il is impossible to dissociate
the intermediate from the long dis
tancc haul. The. long distance haul is
fixed; aud the question whether the
intermediate rate is reasonable depends
upon rates made 10 other points. both
terminal and intermediate, "and 10
permit tho railroads Of this country TO
select points where they Will AMI where
they VIII not compete, would be intol-
crable, - All this is good logic, good
sense, AMI ought to he good law.
In setting forth the point at issue
between the commission and the Com
mcrce Court the commission report
SAYS that it
cannot fix a rate from, New York
line shall not 20 for IL has no authority
10 fix a minimum rate There is, there
forc. no way in which IL can prevent dis
crimipation by the fixing OF an absolute
rate AT San Francisco and another abso-
lute rate at Reno. II can ONLY accomplish
this purpose by prescribing the difference
effect OF this competition and allowing
the carrier to make whatever rate ii
secs II to the more distant points SO long
as il observes this .dIffercntial
The Commerce Court intimatcS that
the mistake of the commission is in hav-
Ing attempted TO fix a citation of rates
instead OF establishing reasonable rates.
but. as We have already pointed out thors,
found To exist in these tariffs can be
prevented except by fixing a diGlcrential,
since VIC nsYe no power to establish All
absolute rate or fiN a minimum charge
below which the carrier is not free TO go
Further reasoning on this point. the
commission argues. that even when the
widest reasonable latitude is given to
the effect of such competition. it eau.
not By any possibility Justify a higher
rate from Omaha TO Reno than from
Omaha to San Francisco. from st. Paul
to Spokane than from st. Paul to Scat.
tie. The commission holds that il is
clearly right for the legislative power
TO fix rates not subject TO review by the
courts; and Congress. having delegated
this power to tho Interstate Commerce
Commission ii is clear TO the commits
sion that the Commerce Court, in un.
dertaking to revise and nullifv Its
work, exceeded its power and trespassed
upon the rights Of Congress as we'll as
of the commission.
However. the case is TO come before
the United States Supreme Court, AMI
there. undoubtedly, Justice will be done
In the meantime the sentiment at all
intermediate points is with the COM