The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-12

sufficient incentive to assume the risks
OF railroad proprietorship.
There remains to be mentioned the
possibility that particular carriers by
reason VI financial mismanagement
reflected in their operating METHODS
have been unecOnomical. and wasteful
In expenditure and have thus unneces-
sarily increased their operating ratios.
II does not appear that any uniform
relationship can he traced bet ween the
present level of the operating ratios
Of carriers whose financial administra-
ton has been culpable and Of the re-
naming carriers.
similarly, instances ~ notable in
creases In the operating ratio DO not
seem to he confined to roads such as
the Rock Island or the Frisco. The
negative conclusion reached i'm this
connection liz hut confirmatory OF the
fact that the general increase In the
operating ratio Is traceable 10 deep
seated underlying caus,s which have
affected carriers generally rough in
creased passenger costs.
Commissioner Daniels in his dissent.
ing opinion says:
This proceeding is the fourth in a
series of proposals TO make general In
creases in freight rates. The first two
were decided In February. 1911. and
denied the proposed increases. The
third. or so-called > per cent. case. de-
cided last July. accorded permission
(, increase certain rates in Central
Freight Association territory and by "A
supplemental finding extended this per-
mission to increase rates to trunk line
territory as well.
Daniels Charges Issue DOdxinG.
Each Of these three cases made a
clear, u~nmistakable p-ronouncement
upon the issue raised by the carriers
OF Inadequate revenues as "A justinca-
ton for proposed increased rates. The
finding In the ) per cent. case was
equally explicit and was to the effect
tia; the net operating income of the
carriers. considered as "A whole. was
smaller than was demanded in the
public interest. In the instant case.
upon a record, II anything. more de-
tailed and comprehensive than in any
one OF the three precedtW cases. the
commission makes no p-ronouncement
upon this general issue.
! am individually OF opinion that our
duty in the present case requires us
ln f~rankness to make "A finding upon
the general issue OF the alleged made
quacy or the revenues or the carriers
collectively. The carriers. the pro-
testants and the country are entitled
to know the conclusion of the commits
sion upon this point and not TO be left
with "A confusing mass of detailed evil
dence and isolated conclusions upon
single matters involved therein.
The three previous general rate adj
vance cases have unquestionably held
that the commission may make a ind
ing upon this general question and
may employ such a finding 10 deter
mine In connection with other relevant
testimony the justice and propriety OF
permitting particular increased rates
to become effective. In the present
case the general issue is simply not
met and in passing upon particular
rates proposed 10 he increased a novel
doctrine is for the first time invoked
to disallow Increased rates save where
the specific evidence relating thereto
makes a refusal manifestly impossible.
The failure to follow established
premises to their legitimate conclusion
only beclouds the principles upon
which the commission may ne expected
to act In future and leaves nothing
certain but uncertainty.
should Notify Railroad de-.
In the matter OF rate regulation and
fxation We have reached IA point where
-. -a, -,.xlt IAlil.rn n l.