Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

desired power. That demand is involved in the Corliss bill. It is a political heresy which should be resisted in its beginning, and under every guise and pretense of restraint.

That the attempts of the Commission to secure the rate-making power intentionally and of necessity involves the Eutopian idea of securing control of the internal commerce of the country is evident from the utterances of the Commission during the last ten years, but perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in the following declaration found on page 10 of its seventh annual report:

To give each community the rightful benefits of location to keep different commodities on an equal footing, so that each shall circulate freely and in natural volume, and to prescribe schedule rates which shall be reasonably just to both shipper and carrier is a task of vast magnitude and importance. In the performance of that task lies the great and permanent work of public regulation.

This expression of its "high ideal" of the work of regulation is a clean-cut proposition by the Commission to commit the Government of the United States to the task of determining all the difficulties involved in the commercial and industrial interaction of the wealthiest, the most enterprising, and the most virile nation on the globe, a matter Iwith which the Government should not meddle. As such it is rank political heresy. It is also wildly impractical and revolutionary.

The fact that of the 807 complaints of unreasonable rates filed with the Commission during the last three years only four, or less than one-half of 1 per cent were susceptible of demonstration under known principles of adjudication indicates that about 400 of the 407 complaints were of the sort which can not be made the subject of governmental concernment. This clearly exposes the absurdity of the proposition "to give each community the rightful benefits of location,” to adjust the commercial and industrial interaction of this great and growing nation, and to accomplish that purpose by setting up at the seat of the National Government a bureau endowed with the function of prescribing rates for the future with the chimerical object in view of keeping different commodities on an equal footing" throughout the length and breadth of this land. This is a wide departure from the views of public policy touching the interaction of commercial and industrial forces which were entertained by the founders of our Government, which operated as a barrier to any sort of regulation for ninety-eight years, and which are dominant in this country to-day.

As a further illustration of the fact that the complaints which are addressed to the Interstate Commerce Commission are mainly of the class not subject to governmental concernment, the fact may be mentioned that in its last annual report the Commission said:

The total number of proceedings brought before the Commission during the year was 340. These include formal as well as informal complaints.

But only ten decisions were rendered by the Commission during the year on formal proceedings, only two of which involved unreasonable rates. In a word, the complaints of all sorts brought to the notice of the Commission had their origin mainly in commercial and industrial conditions completely outside the purview of governmental regulation. I think, Mr. Chairman, that if you will carefully review the testimony of all the representatives of the various trade and industrial bodies who have laid their grievances before you at these hearings, you will find such grievances to be of the intangible character just described, being merely expressions of struggles for commercial ad

vantage, and not based upon any clearly defined errors or acts of injustice on the part of the railroad carriers. An appreciation of this fact seems to have been indicated by the repeated demand of members of this committee for definite information tending to justify the passage of the bill now under consideration-a demand which, in so far as I was able to discern, was in no specific manner complied with.

It would be difficult for Congress to differentiate between complaints which are based upon the conditions of commercial struggle and those complaints which are valid subjects of regulation under the terms of the act to regulate commerce, except in general terms expressive of the firmly established policy of the Government upon the subject. The distinction in concrete cases must be based upon the specific facts which govern in each particular case. The only object had in view in this connection has been to utter a word of warning against a policy which would devolve upon the National Government full responsibility for the course of the commercial and industrial development of this country with all the dangers of sectional political struggle which would be engendered by such a departure from the principles of commercial freedom upon which our governmental institutions are founded.

There is another political aspect of the proposition to confer practically autocratic power upon the Interstate Commerce Commission to which I would here briefly allude. On pages 15 to 22 of my recent pamphlet entitled A Political and Commercial Danger, I stated at some length the reasons which sustain the belief that any provision of law granting to the Commission the power to prescribe rates for the future would eliminate the Federal judiciary from the function of passing upon the reasonableness of rates. This view is fully sustained by Mr. Commissioner Knapp on page 296 of the present hearing, as follows:

While the determination whether a given rate is-that it has been-reasonable or not is a judicial question, the determination of the rate to be substituted in the future is not a judicial question, can not be made a judicial question, and that authority, if exercised at all under the circumstances, must be exercised either by the legislative body itself, or by an administrative tribunal, to which some portion of the legislative power has been delegated. Now, that being so, of course you must bear this in mind, that it is incorrect and misleading to speak of an appeal from the order of the Commission.

Mr. Knapp has made a labored argument to the effect that the determination of the Commission-a mere administrative body, without permanent tenure of office and subject at all times to play of political forces-would be made in a judicial manner, and therefore would have practically the same effect a decisions rendered by the courts. This is too feeble for serious consideration. It would be superfluous to attempt any labored argument upon this point before a committee composed mainly or entirely of lawyers.

The independence of the Federal judiciary has made it the bulwark of the liberties of the people. So long as the courts have final determination of all questions of commercial right, the time-honored policy of noninterference in the competitive struggles of trade will be maintained, but when the courts are eliminated from the determination of such questions, the storm of political demand for commercial advantage will break loose, and the Commission and the political representatives of the people in Congress will bend to the blast. Besides, the sectional political struggles which would ensue from such a policy would endanger the permanence of our governmental institutions. I-C L- --35

The exceedingly limited and in most cases utterly ineffectual way in which Commission rate-making exists in certain of the States of the Union affords no conception of the results which would ensue from placing the interstate and foreign commerce of the country under the control of a body characterized by Commissioner Prouty as "partly political, and to an extent partisan.'

JOSEPH NIMMO, Jr.

RESOLUTIONS UNITED STATES EXPORT ASSOCIATION.

At a meeting of the directors of the United States Export Association, representing in its membership leading houses in 98 principal lines of industry situated in 34 States, held at No. 90 West Broadway, New York, May 8, 1902, the following resolution was adopted unanimously:

"Resolved, That the extension of our foreign trade, especially in the heavy products of the field, forest, mine, and factory, depends in a great degree upon transportation charges, and, in the opinion of this association, the steady growth of our export trade is largely due to the fact that our railroad freights are much lower than those of other countries; that these have been reached through intelligent management and a reasonable elasticity in rates, which permitted meeting the varying conditions of foreign markets; that the interests of our domestic trade are not injured by our transportation lines making lower rates for export than for home trade, but, on the contrary, are benefited, just as they are by manufacturers selling their surplus abroad at less than at home, thereby keeping labor, capital, and machinery fully employed, and decreasing cost through increased volume of business. "Weare therefore opposed to increasing the powers of our Interstate Commerce Commission in the direction of making or controlling rates, believing that with full powers of investigation and its present power to appeal to the courts to decide what is a reasonable rate the public interest will be best subserved. We believe, however, that the evil of unjust discriminations would be minimized if railroads were allowed, under proper supervision and control by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the same right of contract enjoyed by all other corporations and individuals to make and enforce their agreements on each other which they are now debarred from doing by the prohibition of pooling in the interstate-commerce law and by the Sherman antitrust law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the trans-Missouri and Joint Traffic Association decisions. We therefore deprecate the passage of bill H. R. 8337, unless amended to conform to the foregoing principles.

"Resolved, That we fully indorse the views in regard to this bill submitted by the president of this association to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, April 24, 1902." HYLTON SWAN, Secretary.

Attest:

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Tuesday, February 4, 1902. The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. W. P. Hepburn in the chair.

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN M. ADAMS, REPRESENTING THE MISSOURI, KANSAS AND OKLAHOMA LUMBERMEN'S ASSOCIATION.

Mr. ADAMS. We have had several meetings with the officials and brought the matter to their notice. They admitted all the facts in the case, but simply said: "What are you going to do about it?" In the first place we went to the State organizations, the State railroad commissions, and we found they were powerless to act, because they said: "Why, gentlemen, this is an interstate matter and does not properly come under our jurisdiction."

As a final resort, however, we attempted to secure a remedy in the courts. We employed the attorney-general of the State of Kansas and also one of the leading attorneys in the State and we sought to bring action against the railroads, and finally brought them to a hearing. Our committee had a conference with them, and we went over the whole matter from first to last. We threatened in all sorts of ways, both legally and socially and politically, and I think the political intimation was as strong, perhaps, as anyone we made. They admitted that we had grievances, and they admitted that they were just, but at the same time thought we had no recourse, and we were aware that the interstate-commerce law was lame. We had taken the advice of the best Kansas lawyers, both politically and legally, and found that difficulty in the interstate-commerce law.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that difficulty?

Mr. ADAMS. The difficulty in the interstate-commerce law is that the Commission has no power to enforce its decrees in these matters. The CHAIRMAN. The railroads admitted the existence of discriminations?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You had the proofs of the discriminations?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does not the interstate-commerce law provide ample relief and punishment in all cases of discrimination?

Mr. ADAMS. Our attorneys did not find it so, and another difficulty we met was that if we went into the courts it would probably be years before the case could be brought to an issue and a determination, and during this time all these abuses will be going on.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you bring suits against anyone?

Mr. ADAMS. We did not actually commence suits; no, sir.

commence suits in the justice courts of Kansas under advice of our attorneys.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law of your own State?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; under the common law.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you invoke the aid of the interstate-commerce law?

Mr. ADAMS. We did not. Our attorneys advised us not to do so. There was at that time-about a year ago-an amendment to the inter

state-commerce law pending, an amendment presented by Senator Cullom, to strengthen that law and give the Commission more power to enforce the law.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the Interstate Commerce Commission? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been no proposition to give the courts more law?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; only to give the Commission power to enforce their decrees.

The CHAIRMAN. I can not conceive of any reason why under the statement of facts you make you could not have successfully maintained the suit. You had the proofs and the railroads admitted the discriminations, and the law punishes them.

Mr. ADAMS. We had the proofs of that abuse, but it seemed to us from the knowledge we were able to get in every way that the best thing we could do was to use some means-what little influence we had with Congress-to amend the interstate-commerce law.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the amendment you desire?

Mr. ADAMS. We have none drafted, but the amendment that was presented by Senator Cullom seemed to fit the case.

The CHAIRMAN. You want the power of the Commission increased to what extent?

Mr. ADAMS. I notice that the President has recommended that the interstate-commerce law be amended. I presume you are all familiar with this message.

The CHAIRMAN. You favor legislation on the lines suggested by the President?

Mr. ADAMS. I think we do.

The CHAIRMAN. How far do you want this committee to recommendations?

go in its

Mr. ADAMS. We wish the committee to look this matter over, look it through, and formulate such an amendment as will correct the difficulties we, as well as other people, are laboring under. I will read a few lines from the President's message:

The act should be amended. The railway is a public servant. Its rates should be just to and open to all shippers alike. The Government should see to it that within its jurisdiction this is so, and should provide a speedy, inexpensive, and effective remedy to that end. At the same time it must not be forgotten that our railways are the arteries through which the commercial lifeblood of this nation flows. Nothing could be more foolish than the enactment of legislation which would unnecessarily interfere with the development and operation of these commercial agencies. The subject is one of great importance and calls for the serious attention of Congress.

I have not the amendment that was offered by Senator Cullom in the Senate a year ago with me, but it was simply to give the Interstate Commerce Commission more power-more direct power to enforce its decrees.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the Interstate Commerce Commission should be constituted a court and have the power of a court? Mr. ADAMS. I am not prepared to say that I think so?

The CHAIRMAN. Would your association favor that amendment? Mr. ADAMS. Our association would favor giving the Interstate Commerce Commission whatever power is necessary to make their decision in any case final, and to enforce it.

The CHAIRMAN. You gentlemen seem to have taken action in regard to this matter and formulated an opinion, and I would like to have

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »