The Washington times., 1920-03-21

quest of either party or on the initia-
| tive of the board. Investigation will
| in nearly every case result In set
| Element because error shrinks from
| the light-those who are in the wrong
cannot stand up against public opin-
| ion.
But the law ought to state clearly
| that the findings OF the board are not
binding on either party. but rest upon
the moral force of the arguments pre-
scented, and are intended to aid the
public to understand the subject.
The labor clauses of the conference
measure are not. however, as harsh
as they were in this bill as it was
when 1t passed the Senate.
There arc in the new law some
good features. These are nearly ali
results of the experience under Coy
eminent ownership. For instance, ,
railroad may be compelled to alIpw
another road TO use its terminals, a
very sane requirement. Government
ownership has shown how small
changes may greatly add to the con-
venience of the public. and 1t is OK
pected that some of these changes
will become permanent.
States Power Subordinate.
The Senate and the House agreed
in giving to the railroads one Of the
advantages for which they have been
work ing many years. The States,
power is completely subordinated and
all important legislation is trans
ferred to the Federal Government
Only a few years ago the governors
OF the States met and appointed n
the States to regulate intra-Statc
commerce.
The railroad magnates have for
long time understood that the peo-
PIES representatives can be trusted
to protect the people in proportion as
the Capitol Is near to the home Of the
constituents. The more nearly the
legislator works in sight OF those for
whom he speaks. the more faithful
he reflects their views.
The further away he went, the less
restrained he felt because OF the IN
ability of the constituents to watch
him and understand the influences
that acted upon him.
Our 2-cent passenger rates came
from State legislation. not from Con-
gressional action. Congress permitted
the railroads to charge a relatively
higher state Interstate rate than the
rates in the States through which the
road passed.
Danger in Capitalization.
The new railroad law takes a long
step In the direction of centraliza-
ton, and we may soon expect de-
mands for more Capitalization. When
States are completely deprived OF
legislative power. the railroads will
demand the removal of litigation
from State to Federal courts. an5 IL
they can elect their candidates to
the Senate and House we shall soon
hear men talking learnedly about
the necessity of giving the Federal
courts exclusive jurisdiction.
Then the man who is so unfortu-
nate as to be n litigant against a rail-
road will find fighting the corpora
ton so expensive as to make 1t
necessary to accept anything that is
offered. If, for instance, the rail
road runs over a COW, II will be
cheaper to give the railroad the rest
On the herd than to claim damage for
the animal killed.
In one respect the bill Is not as
bad as it might have been. The Sem
ate attempted to amend the House
bill by providing for the Federal in
corporation OF railroads. The avowed
purpose of the Senate amendment |
was to compel the Federal incorpora-
ton of all railroads.
The railroads have desired this for |
at least twenty years. President |
Roosevelt recommended Federal in
corporation in one of his messages, |
and the presidents OF one of the West
ern railroads (Which a legislative |
had recently reported as |
capitalized for three times as much |
as IL would cost to reproduce the |
road) gave as his reason for favor
Ing Federal Incorporation that IT was
the only way to protect the railroad |
from demagogues in the State leg