Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (May 19, 1905)
. P i "in jpta w wmym ia fi wii wmjuPwiM1 jtp -t-wp. -ir- -". iffnjW"W,V,,KTIW IV '- Commoner. MAY 1, IWf wMmiiwm rOURBeNT SVtfcty-;i vi ' J 'wwgyw11 I miiy wuw EDWARD W. MITCHELL died recently in Chicago and the members of the Chicago fcoard of trade made up a fund to bury him. A jwriter in the New York American saya: "Mitchell flied a pauper; he was once a great man. Where the names of Gates, Morgan, Armour and other stock plungers and market plungers are now printed Mitchell's name vas printed thirty years ago. Mitchell was a big grain operator in Chicago jvhen Fisk and Gould were piling up money in railroads in New York. In 1868 he 'cornered' the wheat market in Chicago. He had a company of fellow conspirators against consumers. They shot the prices sky-high. Mitchell made a mil lion or more. Then he went into the market as a bigger plunger. He was betrayed and sold out and found himself penniless. - That was thirty five years ago. Mitchell for ten years sought to regain his fortune, but -he was outclassed by keener-minded men. Then he became a pauper. And every man that has tried to 'corner' a food product has died poor. There is a retribution for food gamblers. It does not seem to follow stock gamblers. The same evil fortune may yet over- take 'those conservative business men' "who, through the infamous meat trust, are robbing the people of the United States." W'lTH reference to railroad rate legislation, Walter Wellman, in' the Chicago Record Herald," says: "Not only railroad men, but ship pers, perceive that the constitution may present a serious and possibly fatal obstacle to the desired rate legislation. Some of the best lawyers in the senate say they do not see how the constitutional i provision can be got round; that if congress "makes . rates at all, it must make them purely on a dis tance basis; that anything save a per mile tariff, regardless of any other conditions, would be con strued by the court as constituting a preference such as the constitutional requirement aimed at. Unless some way can be found to obviate this ditliculty the proposed legislation has a rocky road before it; for it is generally admitted that if government-made rates, so far as they apply to rates to and from ports, can not possess any elasticity, but must be laid down by the mathemat ical rule of so many pounds, so many miles, so much charge, the whole scheme is likely to be a failure." IT WOULD .seem that some of. the members of the interstate .commerce committee are con siderably distressed. Mr. Wellman quotes one member of the committee as expressing an anx iety to know "What would be the liability of the government if it makes rates so low as to effect the . prosperity of the railways? ' Would the govern ment be compelled to stand damages?" Or would the next thing be a move to force the government to buy out the railroads and institute government ownership on a tremendous scale? Furthermore,, if the government could fix the earning power of the properties and decided to do so, would it not next be proper for the government to enact laws as to how much should be paid by the railroads in wages and other costs of operation? MR. WELLMAN admits that these inquiries indicate 'that the member quoted is not very much in favor of legislation, particularly leg islation such as the friends of the proposed reform have advocated; but Mr. Wellman goes further and says that "It is very doubtful if any member of the senate committee is In favor of such legis lation." He adds: "While it is as yet impossible to classify the committee with any degree of cer tainty, all the indications are that a majority is either opposed to "what is commonly called gov ernment ratemaking, or at least takes an exceed- . ingly conservative view of the question. For these reasons the representatives of the railroads are more confident than, ever before that when the thing is finally thrashed out and a law enacted it will be found one which can not give them much trouble." SOME idea of the determination of the railroad magnates to prevent serious action may be obtained from this statement made by Mr. Well man: "Before they get through the managers of the railroad side of the case expect to produce a strong protest from organized labor against the passage of such a bill as the one which went through the house. Elaborate efforts have been made to work up the labor end of the case, and the various railway unions have been impressed with the idea that if the government goes into the making of rates the next step will have to bo the fixing of the wages. At the outset the rail road managers will endeavor to make an impres sion with arguments from the standpoint of tho property holders, the owners of railway securities." EVIDENTLY there are sharp differences in Mr. Roosevelt's cabinet with respect to tho railroad rate question. Secretary Taft recently delivered an address before tho International Railway 'Congress assembled at Washington and the Associated Press reports say that "ho fairly took the breath of the 300 railway men present." Mr. Taft declared that railway rate legislation must c6me; that if tho railway men of the coun try were wise they would aid and not hinder it; that the sentiment of tho country is such that failure of proper regulation meant a cam paign on the subject that would do no good to the railroads. Absolute silence reigned as Sec retary Taft spoke his mind on the subject of rates. He was positively against government ownership, he said, believing that nothing so de leterious could come to the country as this solu tion of the question. "But," ho continued, "you can not run railroads as you run private busi ness. You must respond to the public demand. If there is danger of discrimination, then you must allow the establishment of some tribunal that will remedy that discrimination." The secretary saw no reason why a tribunal properly consti tuted should not bo competent in every sense of the word to fix a maximum rate. STUYVESANT FISH, a railroad magnate who served as toastmaster on the occasion re ferred to, answered Secretary Taft. Mr. Fish said that the law to prevent discrimination and secret rebates was sufficient Ho spoke of tho vested rights of the money tied up in railways and when he took his seat, Mr. Taft who sat next to him, asked for fifteen minutes in which to reply. The time was granted and Mr. Taft made himself more emphatic in favor of railroad rate legislation. "The law," said the secretary, "is as decided by the supremo court of the Uuitcd States that first a commission and then the courts may declare whether a certain rate is reasonable or unreasonable. Now, in fixing that, in the very mental process in determining whether a rate is reasonable or unreasonable one has got to fix what is a maximum. As I under stand it, what Is proposed is only that in litigated cases a commission shall be constituted that shall fix a maximum rate; in other words, to go through tho same process it now goes through to determine what is a reasonable rate. What I am strongly in favor of, -though, Is that w.e shall have a body that shall decide things, and that these things shall be decided within a reasonable time finally by the courts." Mr. Fish again took up the argument, contending that it was the question of fixing the price for the seller of goo Is. ATTORNEY GENERAL MOODY has replied to Senator Elklns' request calling for In formation in regard to the government's power to regulate the operation of railroads, especially in fixing rates. The attorney general's opinion sustains the claim that the government has the power. He lays down a statement of law, in brief as follows: 1. There is a governmental power to fix the maximum future charges of carriers by railroad, vested In the legislatures of the states with re gard to transportation exclusively within the states, and vested in congress with regard to all other transportation. 2. Although legislative, power, properly speak ing, can not be delegated, the law-making body having enacted into law the standard of charges which shall control, may Intrust to an adminis trative body not exercising in the true sense judicial power tho duty t6 fix rates in conformity with that standard. 3. The rate-making power is not a judicial function and can not bo conferred constitutionally upon tho courts of tho United Statos, either by way of original or appellate jurisdiction. 4. Tho courts, however, havo tho power to Investigate any rato or rates iixod by legislative authority and to determine whether they aro such as would ho confiscatory of tho property of tho carrier, and if thoy arc judicially found to bo confiscatory in their offoct, to restrain tholr- en forcement. , 5. Any law which attompts to deprive tho courts of this power is unconstitutional. G. Any regulation of land transportation, how ever exercised, would seem to be so indirect in its effect upon tho ports that it could not con stitute a preference between tho ports of differ- ent states within tho meaning of artlclo 1, sec tion 9, paragraph G of tho constitution. 7. Reasonable, just and -impartial rates de termined by legislative authority aro not within the prohibition of artjelo 1, section 9, paragraph G of the constitution, even though they roniilt in a varying chargo per ton per mile to and from tho ports of tho different states. THE general discussion of tho subject of gov ernment ownership of public utilltioH, is re flected strongly at tho national capital. Tho Washington correspondent for tho Chicago Jour nal says: "One indication of tho drift of public opinion is tho avalanche of requests which havo poured in upon tho department of commerce and labor, the census bureau, tho labor bureau, and oven the department of state, appealing for sta tistics and literature on tho suboct of govern ment ownership of railways. 'Wo aro sending out , hundreds a day of tho consular sheets having to do much with municipal ownership In Great Brit ain,' said Mr. Monaghan, chief of tho consular reports department. 'It has been suggested that they be compilod and made Into a special report, and this may bo done.' " THE subject of government ownership of rail roads is also attracting a largo share of public attention. Tho Journal correspondent nays that municipal ownership is regarded as a pre liminary step to federal ownership of the inter state highways of commerce, anK adds: "Tho agitation for railway control, and particularly tho study of rate-making legislation, has raised tho question whether it might not be simpler to start in on straight federal ownership. The secretary of tho senate committee on interstate commerce received a terrible shock this week by a request from a prominent 'settlement' worker In New York for an opportunity to make an argument before the senate committeo on tho advisability of sub stituting for tho Esch-Townsend bill some meas ure looking to the government ownership and operation of tho railroads. It Is -understood that this gentleman is an advanced student of po litical economy and inclines toward socialism in his views. He" takes the position that the sen ate committee, in seeking for light on this Im portant topic, should not hear ono side only, but that, after listening to the attorneys for tho rail roads the committee should give attention to a solution which has been tried in many parts of tho world with some success." A MEMBER of the interstate commerce com mission, speaking to the Journal corres pondent, said: "Tho broad powers conferred on the national government in that section of tho constitution which gives power to build and oper ate post roads, doubtless would apply to rail- roads. Post roads are now railroads. Congress could pass an appropriation tomorrow, if It wero in session, authorizing tho federal government to build and operate, as an experiment, a trans continental lino of railroad. So congress could authorize the purchase and operation of any ind all tho roads now in existence. Personally, I seo nothing so alarming in tho government owner ship proposition. Tho government runs the pos tal system, and there is less complaint of this than there is of the private management of city and national railway systems. Post rates are more satisfactory than the rates of the private oxpress companies, which have steadily defeated a parcels post system in this country, and which are notoriously extortionate in their charges, ho