A JUDICIAL OPINION QUOTED.

Mr. Prouty attempts to defend his theory by quoting Mr. Justice Bradley who in speaking of the right to control railroad charges said:

"But a superintending power over the highways and the charges imposed upon the public for their use always remains in the Government."

To assume for a moment that Mr. Justice Bradley entertained the idea that the governmental power of regulating commerce should be exercised as a dispensing power or in any manner not subject to judicial review as to the justice and reasonableness of rates charged would be to impeach the common sense of that eminent jurist, and to cast a blight upon his memory.

Moreover it appears safe to say that it would be difficult to find a railroad manager in the United States who does not cheerfully admit the correctness of the above declaration of Mr. Justice Bradley. The "Artificial Man," as the corporation is sometimes styled, is always subject to the law of his creator; and must humbly submit to the guidance and to the restraining and protecting care which such control implies. The fundamental question at issue is shall that control be exercised by virtue of a dispensing power, or in accordance with the principles of our established system of triune government, which makes the question of right or wrong, of justice or injustice, of reasonableness or unreasonableness depend at last upon the determination of "The Judicial Power of the United States," that branch of the National Government which in point of wisdom is pre-eminently "Heir of all the ages, in the foremost files of time."

THE BRITISH RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. Prouty declares that his proposed scheme is similar in character to the British Railway Commission. In this he is wide of the mark. The British Railroad Commission is a branch of the national judiciary, and its conclusions are strictly judicial decisions, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission persistently repels and diligently seeks to avoid, in favor of the exercise of a dispensing power. Besides, the delimitation of legislative, administrative and judicial powers is not so closely drawn under the unwritten British Constitution as it is under the Constitution of the United States. The assumed analogy is without force. COMMISSIONER PROÚTY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD

THE RAILROADS.

Mr. Prouty's attitude toward the railroads of the country is hostile. In his address before mentioned he disregarded all facts as to the enormous growth of the American Railroad System-from 70,000 miles in 1873 to about 200,000 miles in 1893—its greatly increased efficiency, the reduction in the average charge to nearly one-third the average charge imposed thirty years ago, involving a total reduction in freight charges of nearly two thousand million dollars a year, the fact that in the sixteen years of the life of the Commission it has not been able to prove in the courts the existence of a single exorbitant rate and only one case of unjustly discriminating rates in each two and a half years, and that of the complaints made to the Commission 97 per cent are settled through its mediatorial offices, whereas only 3 per cent come to a formal hearing before the Commission. Ignoring all these guiding facts, Mr. Prouty adopted the expedient of referring to certain

particular rates which appear to him to be unreasonable, because they have been advanced in a constant readjustment of rates throughout the country, ignoring concurrent reductions in rates. From the exceptional cases which he selects he predicts danger. He declares that combination has destroyed competition, and that therefore rates must become exorbitant, whereas it has been demonstrated time and again that the restraints which have been placed upon competition during the last thirty years, by association, by compact, and by actual combination or merger of interests have been compelled by the necessity of maintaining order in the conduct of the internal commerce of this country. Besides, such restraints have secured efficiency in railroad transportation and just and reasonable rates. These restraints upon destructive competition have almost invariably been accompanied by a fall in rates.

Not satisfied with the foregoing statements Mr. Prouty expresses himself in the following outburst of feeling:

"The railroad, the railroad combination is one of the most subtle and dangerous instrumentalities in effecting an unjust distribution of wealth by taking from the poor mau wrongfully and giving to the rich ;" "railway transportation is to-day a monopoly ;" "with respect to interstate transportation the public has no safeguard against railroad monopoly ;" the country is confronted by "the danger which always attends monopoly, the exaction of an unreasonable rate;" the only way to control monopoly is to "control the charge which it exacts."

This is hysteria. It exhibits a spirit which expels the semblance of fair dealing. Such language is without the shadow of excuse in actual experience and is utterly

repudiated by facts patent to the general observation, some of the more important of which have herein been noticed.

The railroads of the country from the beginning have been to the shipper and the traveler, as free as are the natural highways of commerce. The common law, the laws of every State, the laws of the United States and the usages of railroad transportation maintain that freedom.

The pretense of Mr. Prouty that the railroads are able to defy the law and the public sentiment of the country regarding established principles of right and justice is without any foundation in fact. Time and again the allegations of Commissioner Prouty and his colleagues as to unreasonable rates, or the apprehension of unreasonable rates, have been absolutely refuted. During its existence the Commission has been unable to sustain its declarations in this regard before the courts or before the committees of Congress. There is also on all sides abundant proof that the railroads have been forceful and efficient agencies in the development of the natural resources of the country, in the creation of new and far-reaching elements of competition in industry, in trade and in transportation; in the distribution of wealth; in furnishing occupation to labor; in the enhancement of wages, and in promoting the general wel

fare.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ANTAGONIZES THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

In its various attempts during the last ten years to acquire dispensing power the Interstate Commerce Commission has persistently antagonized the Federal judiciary. Notwithstanding the fact that the law creating it does not

require that any one of its members shall be a lawyer, the Commission has not hesitated to assert its opinions as against that of the great lawyers of the Supreme Court, both in regard to questions of fact, and to legal and constitutional questions, as well as in regard to questions of public policy which especially concern "The Judicial Power of the United States." In twenty cases adjudicated since it was organized the Commission has resorted to the courts for judicial aid in the enforcement of its autocratic and un-American pretentions and in such instances it has been overruled not only on legal and constitutional grounds, but also on commercial and economic considerations. The orders of the Commission which have failed to secure the approval of the courts have been clearly proved to be illegal orders--completely outside the powers conferred upon it by law. It is for this reason mainly that its various appeals to Congress for additional powers have been disregarded.

The Commission has also strenuously attempted to usurp the powers of the judiciary, to override the judiciary and to circumvent the judiciary. On the other hand the courts have patiently pointed out the excellent and beneficent features of the Act to Regulate Commerce and the powers of the Commission for good, and have manifested an earnest desire to co-operate with the Commission in effectuating the exercise of its undoubted authority in the direction of beneficent regulation. But the Commission has been persistent in its efforts to secure autocratic dispensing power and to free itself from judicial restraint. In reply to a resolution of the Senate dated April 23, 1900,