of the United States upon this subject, and reflecting that while the members of that tribunal, which is the sole interpreter of the constitution, differ as to the powers of the States in the absence of congressional legislation, yet they all agree that when the Congress of the United States does regulate, all State powers are gone with reference to inter-state commerce, and that neither direct nor indirect interference will be tolerated, it becomes a question whether, when a national method of regulation of commerce among the States has been adopted, the States are not left with what are known as purely police powers, outlined in the remarks of Chief Justice Waite, in Stone vs. Farmers Insurance Co., supra.

The relations of domestic and inter-state commerce are so close and complex that it may be found practically impossible to affect the one without affecting the other, and any regulation of domestic commerce purely so may so disturb the operations of inter-state commerce under a national method of regulation that a united court may hold such legislation invalid, because an encroachment upon the exclusive power of Congress. By a decision of a majority of the court these questions seem to be of an actual practical character. The situation calls for the immediate action of Congress, and what has been demanded by a few advanced thinkers for some years may now be said to be the almost universal demand of the people. That inequalities, discriminations and apparent injustice is found in the unregulated operations of inter-state commerce will not be disputed. The existence of unregulated inequality, discrimination and injustice constantly exasperates the public mind. It brings about conditions of public sentiment unfavorable to calm and dispassionate discussion. The declaimer and denouncer of such known evils gains a much readier hearing, and a much more sympathetic audience than can be gained by the cool thinker, who dispassionately seeks by slow methods to do exact and even justice. The existence of pools and combinations to maintain rates, the actual evidence of apparent unjust discriminations resulting therefrom, the belief in their illegality make the public, suffering from actual grievances and apparently unjust discriminations, unwilling to grant time to discuss the question whether or not such combinations are wholly hurtful. The belief, apparently justified by the facts, that non-competitive points are made to bear the burden of losses sustained at competitive points; that localities are made to suffer in the interest of more favored localities; that private interests are built up at the expense of the

general public; that throughout the whole complex and intricate machinery of trade operations the mischievous fingers of interested public carriers are being constantly thrust to the detriment of both shippers, producers and consumers is too firmly formed to be in the least degree shaken by discussion and further patient investigation of facts. Regulation and control at once is an imperative necessity, and cannot in our opinion be wisely postponed. Any method adopted will necessarily be tentative in character. Yet the evils existing are constantly present with the people, and a remedy must at once be found.

It is a matter to be regreted, but certainly to be anticipated, that the friends of regulation and control have been drawn into a somewhat angry discussion of the method of control. One party to the debate proposes to enact some general rules and leave their enforcement and illumination to the courts. The other party proposes to enact general rules, and entrust their enforcement primarily to a board or tribunal created for that purpose, but the legal remedies are all as applicable as though this tribunal were not in existence. And thus the friends of control have in certain regions been drawn into an angry and exciting controversy of the utility of the tribunal known usually as railroad commission. The inability under the constitution of the United States of the State boards to exercise any control over, or in any manner to regulate matters of inter-state commerce, connected with the fact that three-fourths of our transportation transactions are of an inter-state character, are skillfully arrayed to show the impotency of commissions. The argument fairly stated is that as the State commissions which had no power to regulate inter-state commerce had in no way alleviated the distress resulting from inter-state commerce wrongs or evils, therefore a board of commissioners with full and complete powers to act upon the grievances would be equally impotent. To state the proposition is to demonstrate its fallacy.

It must be admitted by any candid observer of railroad matters in the several States of the Union as well as in foreign countries, that commissions with power have not been entirely successful in the management and regulation of the relations of the public to the transportation companies. Much of the failure has come from an attempt to combine two impossible factors, namely, absolute equality and unrestricted competition. The whole question of regulation and control is a difficult one. The railroad is a comparatively new factor in public economy, and often in its operation seems to throw doubt over the

soundness of what had heretofore been supposed to be well established principles of trade and business. The railroad has produced equally marked and striking results in social and moral directions. The average man of to-day is unlike his fathers, and it must be admitted that these dissimilarities are largely traceable to the influence of the railroad upon society in general; so that it is undoubtedly true that one determined to criticise can always find proper subjects of criticism in the acts and the failures to act on the part of railroad commissioners. And yet thoroughly candid men with broad ideas. and considerable knowledge of the subject and the difficulties, substantially agree that the regulation through a commission has been in the main the most satisfactory method.

The fact that the States of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Michigan, Wis-. consin, Minnesota, Missouri, California, Virginia, Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, New York, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Colorado, and the Territory of Dakota have all established railroad commissions for the regulation and control of railroads, coupled with the further fact that most of these commissions have been established within the last decade, may be cited as proving that the latest and best thought of the country has settled upon the commission as the best instrument of regulation.

It cannot well be urged that the legislatures of all these different and widely separated and variously conditioned free commonwealths had been dominated by any malign influence in the selection of a commission for the regulation of railways, nor could it be supposed that their choice is anything but the result of careful discussion and studious consideration of the evil and the proper method of its remedy.

Again, the evidence taken before the Senate Committee on InterState Commerce from advanced thinkers on the transportation question, from producers, consumers, shippers, farmers and merchants so largely settles upon a commission as a proper and necessary instrument of regulation, as to practically amount to unanimity of sentiment on the subject. It would seem to be unsafe to disregard the average unprejudiced judgment of so large and intelligent a body of men, upon a subject so long and carefully considered.

Our opinion is fixed that nine-tenths of all objection to the commission system comes from a consideration in the State of its inability to control inter-state commerce. Nothing so exasperates as an

evil without remedy, and the matter being conclusively determined that Congress alone has the power to regulate commerce between the States, we earnestly hope that immediate and efficient action may be taken by that body upon its re-assembling.

The following public utterances of Senator Cullom, of Illinois, give a resume of the subject in its present situation more clearly and distinctly than anything we have seen, and we commend it to the consideration of those interested in the subject:

"There is now no dispute as to the right of the States to regulate domestic commerce within their own borders. The line of demarcation between the powers of the States and of the general government in the regulation of commerce has been more clearly indicated. than ever before in the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court at the October term in the case of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway vs. the People of the State of Illinois. In that decision the court says that 'the distinction between commerce among the States and the other class of commerce between the citizens of a single State, and conducted within its limits exclusively, is one which has been fully recognized in this court, although it may not always be easy, where the lines of these classes approach each other, to distinguish the one and the other.'

"The failure of Congress to impose any regulations will now be a declaration that inter-state commerce shall be free from legislative restrictions, and the people will know who to hold responsible if no such restrictions are imposed. The pernicious practice known as stock-watering has done more to create and keep alive a popular feeling against the railroads than any other one cause. Of the existing indebtedness of the railroads of the United States perhaps $2,000,000,000, and possibly a much larger amount, represents 'watered stock.' This great abuse of the powers of corporations chartered by the States cannot be directly reached by national legislation, but I am satisfied that Congress might do much to remedy the evil by causing the financial operations of all inter-state roads to be thoroughly investigated by a national railroad commission, as the publicity that would attend such investigations would bave a tendency to prevent such illegitimate transactions, and would awaken a public sentiment strong enough to secure the necessary State legislation.

"It may not be inappropriate in closing to say a few words about the cheering prospect for securing the enactment of national legislation upon this subject at the approaching session of Congress.

During the last session each house took action upon the subject. The Senate passed one bill and the House another. A conference was asked and granted, and these measures are now before a conference committee representing both branches, which will meet in Washington a week before Congress convenes to see if an agreement cannot be reached. I believe that the differences between the two houses should be and can be adjusted. After years of discussion as to the precise methods of regulation that should be adopted matters seem at last to be gradually coming to a focus, and I am quite hopeful that legislation will finally be secured at the coming session that will be of service in protecting the public against unjust discrimination on the part of all transportation companies engaged in inter-state commerce, in doing away with the system of secret special rates and all manner of personal favoritism, and in making railroad rates public and the same to all men alike for the like service.

"The questions at issue between the two houses of Congress will come up for consideration before the conference committee, and, as I am a member of that committee, I do not deem it proper on this occasion to refer to those questions, or to express my views as to either of the pending measures. I will say, however, that, although my name has been attached to one of those measures, I have never been a stickler for any pet measure of my own. Knowing the justice of the popular demand for some legislation on the subject, my chief anxiety has been to secure the enactment of some law that would make a beginning in placing some restrictions upon the conduct of the railroad corporations in their dealings with the public, whether all its provisions fully met my approval or not. I rejoice in the belief that the members of the conference committee soon to meet will come together with an earnest determination to secure the enactment of such a measure as will commend itself in its main features to their best judgment."

Mr. Coffin having devoted a great deal of time and attention to car couplers and automatic brakes, his views on them and some other matters here follow.

AUTOMATIC OR SAFETY COUPLERS.

Of the importance and absolute necessity of these for freight cars, we feel we cannot recede from the position taken in former reports. We are not, however, sure that the action taken by some of these States in making it the duty of the Railway Commissioners of these