But, as I stated, we were forced to bear the brunt of our past sins—and more—in the campaign for increasing the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Do not misunderstand me. Many thoughtful railroad men believed always, in the value, both to the railroads and the public, of an interstate law, and, further, considered it wise to strengthen the power of the Commission. The distinction, however, between what railroad men did and did not believe in, is very clear. We felt and we feel now that the government is perfectly justified in regulating railroad practices to the extent of preventing discriminations. Indeed, the government should act as a sort of policeman to see to it that the weak and the helpless are protected. If reasonably administered, the railroads need the law. But the government should not have the right to interfere with the proper play of the natural commercial forces of the nation. The great distinction between police and commercial powers should never be lost sight of.
The danger does not lie in the provisions of the new national law. There is no substantial difference between its provisions and those of the old law, except in respect to the powers of the Commission. There was no necessity for the new law, so far as the prevention of the old abuse of secret rates and discrimination was concerned. The operation of this law does not involve any material change in traffic operations of the railroads; the only danger is as to how the Commission may exercise their power in influencing reductions in rates, but even in that respect the railroads have the right of appeal to the courts. It is from various other bills being presented in Congress in which the immediate danger lies, showing possible interference by the national government with the operation of railroads, with respect to the hours of labor of its employes, systems of signals, and other methods of operation, which should properly be left to the railroads themselves. This threatened interference of the federal government is having a powerful and dangerous influence upon the legislatures of the various states, who apparently are—in a slang term—"Seeing Congress and going them five or six better"—in the bills for reduction of state rates, both passenger and freight; for increase in taxation, and all sorts of measures which tend to reduce the earnings and increase the expenses, and hamper and delay the actual development necessary.
It was unfortunate that in the agitation and discussion following the President's recommendations, until the present law was finally adopted, there was a total misunderstanding upon the part of the public at large as to this attitude of the railroads. It was most unfortunate in that campaign that the principal point of contest upon the part of the railroads was lost sight of—and that is—the objection upon their part not to reasonable amendments to the law, and not—if the people wanted it—to some increase of power to the Commission, but to the attempt to make a commission of five or seven men—in many respects a political body—the final arbiters as to the rates and fares of the railroads.
DIFFICULTIES UNDER THE PRESENT LAW.
Yet even with the new law on the statute books, our traffic problems are still with us. We are forbidden by law to make formal agreements as to rates, yet it is universally recognized that in order to secure an equitable adjustment of rates, it is absolutely necessary that the traffic managers of the railroads shall confer frequently. It is well known that such conferences are held and must be held to prevent discriminations, yet no definite agreements can be made.
The present law stipulates that there shall be no discrimination by railroads against persons or communities. Right here, however, the railroads are face to face with a problem all their own, which is a very serious one, and that is: How shall a particular railroad prevent discrimination against a community on its own line by some other railroad seeking to specially favor a community on its line? Is it not absolutely essential that there should be both an understanding and a virtual agreement on the part of the two railroads concerned for the purpose of protecting both communities?
Cases of dispute between railroads as to proper rate adjustments have, indeed, been referred to Interstate Commerce Commissioners as arbitrators and their findings have been observed. This shows how absolutely vital to all business is the necessity for that co-operation which can only be secured by agreement and conference between all interested parties. The President of the United States recognized the necessity for this fact in his last annual message and recommended that some legislation be passed which would permit agreements between railroads as to rates.
We are thus in the presence of this ridiculous situation; that on the one hand we are being threatened with prosecution by the Government for violation of the Sherman Act in respect to methods which on the other hand the President of the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commissioners agree must be followed in order to properly discharge our responsibility to the public—in other words, we are "between the devil and the deep sea," or we are damned if we do, or we are damned if we don't.
So much for the moment, for our national problem. As to State regulation: while not believing—now that we have a national law—that it is necessary or desirable for the public to establish state commissions and special railroad laws, at the same time, if the people desire such commissions, we have no right to look upon such a demand as "anarchistic," but we feel that the working of such commissions will be unsatisfactory to the business interests.
CONFIDENCE AND JUSTICE NEEDED.