Evening star., 1928-03-09
Attack ON John J. Esch
Denounced as Unfair
To the Editor OF The star:

To the Editor OF The star:
Your issue Of March g, 1928, carried
the news that the interstate commerce
committee Of the Senate had by . vote
Of 10 to z rejected the nomination of
Mr.. John J. Esch for reappointment to
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
This is most unfortunate situation
and one which Is Of the gravest concern
TO those who practice before the Inter-
state Commerce Commission and know
by daily contact the unusually high
character Of the entire commission and
Its personnel. To those who know, 1t
has always been especially gratifying
decisions are so enormously important
has heretofore succeeded in keeping
itself comparatively free Of political
domination: and that its cases are
honestly decided upon fair corsidera-
ton Of the evidence instead OF being
controlled by the political influence OF
great interests.
Apparently the West Virginia op-
orators have been waging labor wars so
long that their ethical sensibilities are
dulled. for while their latest case was
pending before the commission, we arc
informed that they embarked on an
active propaganda campaign which
ripened into this viciously unfair attack
on Commissioner Esch
We do not believe that some OF the
Senator's taking part In the attack
originally understood the true situation
and that they must have been misled
by some Of their constituents. They
based their attack ON one or the other
of two grounds % that the commission
was unwarrantably setting itself up as
an economic dictator and was making
rates according to It's own conceptions
of the economic needs Of particular
sections; or ~ that political pressure
had induced Commissioner Esch TO
to change his vote to secure reappoint-
ment
On ~, the economic phase. We think
some of them have really been confused
as they cannot see the difference be-
tween cause and effect. OF course. the
effect Of any relative change In rates is
bound to have an economic result,
favorable to those getting the lowered
rate and unfavorable to those who have
to pay the relatively higher rates. but
such a forecaSted effect was not the
cause OF the readjustment. Those who
understand the situation know that
rates are primarily considered either
under section /, as to their reasonable
ness. or under section 3. as to their
prejudicial nature: and in the back
ground stands section 15-a which puts
a duty on the commission to fix "as
nearly as maybe" an adequate level OF
rates. In the foreground now is the
Hoch-Smith resolution which seemingly
docs seek to dictate rates TO meet eco
nomic considerations. but that's the
handiwork of Congress itself But even
If the commission should be guilty of
taking Congress seriously why pick on
any one commissioner?
On t2), the matter Of the so-called
change of vote" by Commissioner
Esch: Those who are informed know
that the Supreme Court has repeatedly
said that the commission must act on
the evidence before it in the particular
case which 1t Is considering. The
principle of stare Decisis" doesn't con-
troll the commission in its function Of
rate making for future application. and
1t would be an unfortunate situation
indeed II shippers who may really have
great merit in their contentious, but
who failed to support same with suff-
cient evidence the first time. should be
forever thereafter precluded from get
ting another consideration of the merits
in a subsequent case in which they
could produce ample evidence to sustain
their plea for relief
PENNSYLVANIA has the doubtful distinc-
ton Of having been the first one guilty
of trying TO pack" the commission by
It's attitude towards the confirmation OF
Commissioner Woodlock and the nomi-
nation Of Cyrus Woods. The nominal
ton of Mr.. Woods was properly rejected
for that very reason, and now the West
Virginia group is rcSorting to the same
reprchenSible tactics In attacking Esch
because his vote in the last case was
adverse to their interests.
~ OF course, II Mr.. Esch changed his
vote for the sake Of rcappointmeut. and
especially II that vote was clearly con-
trary to the evidence. he would deserve
defeat Mr. Esch he's long public
record and the Senators WHO attack
him are guilty Of the most paradoxical
Inconsistency when they admit there Is
no question but that he is man Of the
most spotleSs character.
Irrespective OF any effect upon Mr.
ESch as an individual. the great prinei-
pie which Is involved Is whether orderly
courses should be overthrown and losing
sides be encouraged 10 political reprisals
To coerce the decisions Of the commits
sion.
It Is evident from the daily press re-
ports that al least the newspaper CORE
spondents now understand the true in
wardncSs OF the situation. and the at
tacking Senators must also know In
their hearts In what an untcna6le situa-
ton they are involved.
Politics and human nature being what
they are. II Is 10 be expected that the
attacking Senators will press their mis-
take 10 bitter end but II is certainly
very much 10 be hoped that the Senate
t,-i,n y.stn ySE tn
10 act with S;atesmanShip
MOULTRIE HIT.
CLARENCE a MILLER.