Year: 1873

Attempts to regulate by law the charges of
railroad corporations are now occupying no
small part of the attention of almost every
legislative body in the country. Mr.. Shella-
barger of Ohio has recently introduced one
bill on the subject into Congress and Mr.. Haw-
ley of Illinois another. The inaugural of every


newly elected Governor which comes to us has
something to say upon it. In many of the States,
and notably IN Illinois, cases involving the
power of Legislatures to deal with the ques-
ton are pending before the courts. BY re-
solve of the last Legislature of Massachusetts
the whole subject was referred to the Board
of Railroad Commissioners of that State, with
instructions to report at the beginning of the
present year "by bill or otherwise" The re-


suit of the investigations of the Board have
now been published, and they afford but poor
encouragement to those looking for a solution
of our problems through the medium of stat
ute regulation.


The Commissioners fairly decline to intro


duce any bill, for the simple reason that they
would have no confidence in its efficacy.
They further state, at considerable length,
their reasons for arriving at this conclusion,
and those reasons should receive the consid-
Grafton of other Legislatures besides that of
Massachusetts. They discuss the subject his
torically and upon principle. They examine
the different systems which have been in use
for the regulation of railroads in the public
interest, both in this country and in Europe,
and from this examination they deduce GER
tain general conclusions. Their report is too
long to admit of our presenting even an alb
stract of it at this time, but their conclusions
are sufficiently distinct. They find statute
efforts at the regulation of freight and fares


in every conceivable shape, scattered over in
Vulnerable statute-books during the last forty
years. Few of these, they declare, have pos
sessed any efficacy, nor do they find much to
commend in the working of those which have
possessed any. To that class belongs the sys-


TEN Of Parliamentary trains" in En-
gland, and the law limiting fares to
two cents a mile on the Central Road.
They adduce the authority of recent
select committee of Parliament for pronounc-
ing the English legislation a failure, and they
examine the working of the New-YOrk law,
and conclude that it has resulted in nothing
better than the system which has worked itself
out unaided by legislation in Massachusetts.
OF the laws recently enacted in Illinois and in
other States, they speak with scarcely dis
guised contempt, pointing out how they come
in conflict with perfectly well established eco
nOmical principles on which the whole business
of transportation must always depend. The
price Of thing must depend on the cost of a
thing. If it costs more proportionally to move
a thing ten miles than to move it one hundred,
then more must be paid for the service, and
no law which undertakes to say it shall not
will prove other than a dead letter.


The difficulty with al possible legislation Of
this class, as the Commissioners point out is
obvious and two-fold. The railroads in this
country are not, and in the natuBe of things
cannot be, either limited to State lines or
wholly amenable to State laws. No legisla-
tive body except Congress can control more
than comparatively small portion of any of
the great through routes. The seat of diff
Guilty is often, therefore, thousand mics re-
moved from the point where it makes itself
felt, and where the remedy for it is sought |
Even where this is not the case, the conditions |
and nature of the business of |
different lines vary so infinitely that it is
practically impossible TO lay down any rules
Of universal application. This is one diff
Guilty the other is that, even if laws could be
framed, they would, under our system of gov
ernment necessarily lack what may be called
.xecutOry force. TO understand the meaning