Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-08-11
tBy Ora Williams. ]

tBy Ora Williams-l
It IL unfortunate, from many points
OF view. that the decision of the in
terstate commerce commission in the
eastern per cent case, should have
come at a time when the public is en-
crossed in other more exciting topics.
The decision is of such vast import
ance, such broad character. so far in
advance of all others that have pre-
ceded. that it will be much heard OF in
the next dozen years. 1t may even
form the basis OF very important nat
ional controversies.
Under other conditions the decision
would have been much analyzed and
discussed, and this would have been
good, for such analysis would be help
full and en!ightening, and IN Iowa as
in other states, there has been too little
serious consideration OF the one CEN
trail problem that was involved. The
interstate commerce commission. in
the decision referred to. stated this
big problem in the following words:
The public owes 10 the private own
ers of these properties. when well To-
Gated and managed. the full oppor-
unity TO earn fair return on the in
vest,nent; and the carriers owe TO the
q
able rates This fundamental doctrine
has been recognized by the commission
in the performance OF It's duties. The
proceeding before US may therefore be
described as. in some sense, a contro-
versy between the consuming public
which pays the ~ates, and the investor
who furnishes the facilities for moving
the freight: and cur duty is to ascer
f,a
are their respective rights. That, in
fact, is the real railroad question
the just balancing of the mutual rights
OF the public and Of the carriers under
a national policy that permits and in
vires the performance Of this public
function by private interests. From
that point Of view the problems and
difficulties OF our railroads become
public problems Of great concern"
Bearing III mind how the controversy
became broader than it was a, first. by
reason Of ttae insisIence that was made
Of full iTves igation before any con-
clusion should be reached, the charec-
ter of the decision can be better under
stood The results seem TO have just;-
fed the turning on of the searchlight
when the commission and the public
were being overwhelmed with stats
,ical trade winds. What was done was
10 inquire into the merits OF this larger
controversy as necessary 70 an under
standing Of the petition made for an
arbitrary increase Of rates over vast
territory es g business s:inulator.
TO the student of economies the de-
cision IS or slight Importance in the
matter Of giving the railroads what
they asked for or not The decision
does not seem 10 justify the rather
hasty conclusion of a great railroad
victory as il was hailed il some quar-
tiers Result Of interviews in New York
OF railroad men was that they con-
s;dered that little, If any, good would
accrue from the increase" President
(. Trues6ale OF the Lackawarna was
greatly disa ppointed with the dcision-'
The Wall Street Journal editorialiy
concluded that the best that could De
caid Of II was that TO anyone who APP
+ p-eciates how helpless the carriers
are to adopt any OF the measures Of
relief suggested by the commission
the decision viii appear in the light ~
/ 2 moral v:c:o-y-' Rut that was hariiy
! what they went after. Its Immediate
efFct. however" says the Journal.
I promises to be so slight as 10 be al
most unapprecia BILE" But it SENS al
most as i the commission itself an
swered in anticipation the claim o. q
moral victory" by laying down this
rule:
While the right to demand a
higher rate may be denid when
the existing charg is reason
able even tho the particular carrier
may be in need of additional earnings.
/ 50 a carrier may be entitled 20 high
er rate for q particular service be
cause the existing rate is unreasonable
I low, altho the carrier max not De in
need OF additional revenues
/ And 10 show that this is not a new
/. rule the commission quoted from for
/ mer decision, an Iowa case involvin g
I the Illinois Central bridge al Dubuque,
alone the same line. In that case the
i commission refused To reduce bridge
i tolls even tho il was shown that there
I were very generous returns TO the car
/ riers on the investment. Now the rule
! is reversed and applied
! The claim is made by the railroads
7 and their champions that in the latest
decision there is esta blished the pTin-
cipie that freight rates may De regu-
! lated up as we'll as down, and this is
pointed TO as the one new thing in the
decision But. as a matter OF fact this
is not new. In the big case last yeaI
involving classification matters hun
I dreds of increases we're approved. Tnf
commission has all along recognized
the right of the carriers to a fair re-
Enumeration. Now what happened II
this latest case?
! The per cent raise vas denied Fat
II and in toto. Some increases weT'
granted in part of the territory. Sus-
gestions as to other methods of get
ing revenue were made. Efficiency II
! management to reduce expenses is I'd
!, vised
In view Of apparent confusion over
the matter of the raises approved 1T
&C. F.. A. territory. it may be worth
, while analyzing the decision OF the
commission in this particular.
There can be no doubt upon the
record" says the commission. that the
!, carriers in Central Freight Association
= territory ought, in the public interest
m n.ya g ro,,ch additional revenue as