"Washington, January 29, 1908.
"Hon. Stephen B. Elkins,
"Chairman Committee on Interstate Commerce,
"United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
"Dear Sir: The Interstate Commerce Commission has the honor to submit the following in response to your communication of 24th instant, transmitting a bill (S. 423) to amend section 6 of the act to regulate commerce, introduced by Senator Fulton December 4, 1907, and requesting the commission to 'advise the committee before its next meeting, January 31, their opinion of said bill and what action they would suggest thereon.'
"Whilst the views of the entire commission can not be definitely ascertained within the time named, because of absences on official business, a majority of the commissioners and probably all of them would not be disposed to favor the enactment of this measure.
"To give to the protest of a single shipper the effect of preventing the advance of any rate until the reasonableness of that advance was affirmatively determined by the commission would establish a hard and fast rule of doubtful fairness to the railroads and questionable advantage to the public. Under existing conditions we are of the opinion that it would be unwise to adopt the arbitrary limitation which this bill proposes, whatever may be found desirable or necessary in this regard in the future.
"It is further to be observed that the passage of such a bill at this time would impose a burden upon the commission which it ought not to be asked to undertake. If every proposed advance had to be investigated by the commission and officially sanctioned before it could take effect, the number of cases to be considered would presumably be so great as to render their prompt disposition almost impossible. In instances of justifiable increase the necessary delay resulting from the probable volume of cases would work injustice to the carriers. Until conditions become more stable and the substantive provisions of the act are more completely observed in railway tariffs and practices we entertain the belief that a wider latitude of discretion on the part of carriers than this measure allows should be permitted.
"It is also suggested that the practical effect of the proposed amendment might be to prevent voluntary reductions of rates by the carriers. If no rate could be increased without the approval of the commission after affirmative showing by the carrier it might happen that many reductions now voluntarily accorded would not be made.
"This subject of rate advances was discussed in our recent annual report to the Congress, and that portion of the report is transmitted herewith for the information of your committee. It concludes with a recommendation relating to the matter in question in which the entire commission concurred, and that recommendation is now respectfully renewed.
"Very respectfully,
"Martin A. Knapp,