The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1914-12-31
Questions in Railway Regulation.

Within the last few days the Pennsylvania Pub
lie Service Commission has handed down a de-
cision ordering large reduction in the railway
rates for the transportation of coal from the coal
mining regions to the city of Philadelphia. The
chief ground for this decision seems to be desire
on the part of the commission to equalze the rate
for carrying coal to Philadelphia with that for
carrying coal to New York. The rate to New
York is considerably cheaper than that to Phila-
clsres, and the Philadelphia rate must come down
to the New York level.
Most people will agree at first thought with
the commissions decision. reduction in the
Philadelphia rate seems based on obvious prin-
ciples of justice The railroad and coal companies
were apparently numerically greedy in seeking to
charge more for carrying coal from the central
part of Pennsylvania to Philadelphia than for
carrying it to city outside the State and greater
distance away. But the problem is not so easy as
it seems, and the matter is worth considera-
ton here because it illustrates the difficulty and
the danger in giving a snap judgment as to these
concerns New York city is the largest coal
market in the country. Coal is brought into New
York both by land and water, and by all sorts
of routes and in all sorts of ways The New York
market is, in other words, competitive market,
and one coal carrier has to struggle with another
coal carrier in order to sell his coal to the best
possible advantage. As has been we'll said by one
of our esteemed contemporaries in New York city,
the New York rate coal is reached in what may
be called the Commercial" manner. The rate is
fixed by contest between rival transportation
agencies which results in a low rate as compared
hat in y,ber is
no competition. Conditions in New York and
Philadelphia as regards the transportation of coal
are unequal, and it will be impossible to equaIize
them by law.
There is another difficulty still. Some time ago.
in what is known the Shreveport case, the Su-
preme Court of the United States held that State
authority had no right to order railway company
engaged in interstate commerce to make such
low rate for freight transportation within the Dor
ders of the State as to have an injurious or even
serious, effect upon interstate rates. The Supreme
Court held that in all such cases the national au-
thority must prevail, and the local rates must con-
form to a general schedule which will yield the
railroad company fair return The railroad COM
pany not be compelled to reduce its rates to
an unremunerative level in order to comply with
orders given it by-a State railroad commission. In
the present case therefore, there is no doubt that
just as in the Shreveport case whether the Penn
sylvania commission is within its constitutional au-
thority in making the Philadelphia coal rates.
Questions like these arc coming up all the time,
and they involve the general and fundamental
question of the permanent conflict between Federal
and State regulation OF railroad companies A
good many thoughtful people are asking them
selves whether with two authorities one State and
one national attempting to handle the railway COM
panes, they make successful job of it. Will
there not be continual disagreement between State
and national commissions? Can these commits
sions be made to work together tremendously so as
to comply with the general constitutional provision
that the railroad companies shall be allowed to
transact business that pays? 1t is apparent that
the supervision of the railroads here involved cx-
tends not merely to traffic, but to the whole prob
lem of government regulation. In the last analysis
does not the question resolve itself into the neces
sity OF national supervision of the railroads
that shall be supreme and self-centercd?