[400]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3644.
[401]. Out of 37 passenger cases (20 rate cases and 17 miscellaneous) the decision was favorable to the complainant in 9; and in 316 freight cases the decision was for the complainant in 185 cases. In 70 of the freight cases the complaint was of excessive charges (half of them charging discrimination also, or relative excess as well as absolute excess); 119 related to charges relatively unreasonable; 52 concerned long and short haul abuses; 20 unreasonable classification, 8 unfair distribution of cars, 41 miscellaneous. Ninety-six of the 316 freight cases were dismissed, 13 settled while pending, 4 left without a general statement and no order, and 17 held for further action. Nearly 90 percent of all the cases, passenger and freight, related directly to some form of discrimination, and indirectly discrimination of some sort was an element in practically every case.
[402]. The 8 cases are the New York and Northern Case (3 I. C. C. 542) the Social Circle Case (4 I. C. C. 744) the Minneapolis Case (5 I. C. C. 571) the Colorado Fuel and Iron Case (6 I. C. C. 488) the St. Cloud Case (89 I. C. C. 346) the Savannah Case (8 I. C. C. 377) the Tifton Case (9 I. C. C. 160) and the California Orange Routing Case (9 I. C. C. 182). Mr. Willcox thinks the Minneapolis Case and the Colorado Case should be crossed off because the carriers complied with the orders while suit was pending, so that there was no decision on the merits. He says the decision was not on the merits in the New York Case, the St. Cloud Case, or the Tifton Case. In the Social Circle Case the Supreme Court sustained the order in respect to discrimination, but reversed it so far as it attempted to fix a maximum rate. In the Orange Case the Circuit Court sustained the Commission, but an appeal was taken at once to the Supreme Court. In the Savannah Naval Stores Case the Circuit Court sustained the Commission and no appeal was taken. Two cases in favor of the Commission in the Court of Appeals and one-half a case in the Supreme Court, and one of the circuit decisions is on appeal—one and one-half final affirmatives on the merits out of 34. One would think that Mr. Willcox might allow the Commission the three cases that were decided in their favor although the court did not find it necessary to go into the merits of the matter, and he seems to be less generous about the Colorado Case than Mr. Newcomb, who says the Commission was sustained by the court.
[403]. Work of the Interstate Commission, p. 14, 1905. (See Appendix [A].)
[404]. As the average time required to reach a final decision in a case that goes from the Commission through the Federal courts up to the United States Supreme Court is 7½ years, it is clear that there is plenty of time for the accumulation of a congregation of cases, birds of a feather, waiting for judgment, on the same point.
[405]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2888.
[406]. The railroads would prefer a court to a Commission if any public body is to have power over rates. They know that proceedings in court are likely to be troubled with long delays, and great expense, and that courts are very delicate about determining what is a reasonable rate. In the Reagan case (154 U. S. 362) the Supreme Court says: “It has always been recognized that if the carrier attempted to charge a shipper an unreasonable sum the courts had jurisdiction to inquire into that matter and award to the shipper any amount exacted from him in excess of a reasonable rate; and, also, in a reverse case, to render judgment in favor of the carrier for the amount found to be a reasonable rate.”
In any case of suit by a shipper to recover damages for unreasonable charges the court would have to determine what was a reasonable rate in order to fix the measure of damages, but Chairman Knapp of the I. C. C. says he does not know of a case in which suit was ever brought (Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3301). The fact that very many complaints have been made of unreasonable rates and no suits brought in the courts indicates that court procedure is regarded as inadequate. Courts are by nature judicial, not legislative or executive. And the remedy which can be administered by them in these railroad cases is uncertain, limited, and indirect. (Sen. Com. p. 3362.)
[407]. Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 3297, 3298.
[408]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 975.