. 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
