[708] Volume II, in the chapter on Capital Stock.
[709] Cf. Senator La Follette's characterization of it. Footnote, p. [559], supra.
[710] The National Waterways Commission Report of 1912 urged this strongly. And the attempts in connection with fixing the tolls for the Panama Canal in the same year, to prohibit all railway ownership or interest in coastwise steamships, were significant of legislation yet to come. Cf. pp. [591] and [638], infra.
[711] Cf. the Goodrich Transit Co. case. Page [586], infra.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE COMMERCE COURT: THE FREIGHT RATE ADVANCES OF 1910
The Commerce Court docket, [581].—The Commerce Court in Congress, [582].—Supreme Court opinions concerning it, [583].—Legal v. economic decisions, [586].—Law points decided, [586].—The Maximum (Cincinnati) Freight Rate case revived, [588].—Real conflict over economic issues, [590].—The Louisville & Nashville case, [590].—The California Lemon case, [592].—Broad v. narrow court review once more, [593].
The freight rate advances of 1910, [594].—Their causes examined, [595].—Weakness of the railroad presentation, [596].—Operating expenses and wages higher, [597].—The argument in rebuttal, [598].—"Scientific management," [598].—The Commission decides adversely, [599].
The three vital features of the Mann-Elkins law of 1910 were: the creation of the Commerce Court, for the purpose of expediting the judicial review of cases appealed from the Interstate Commerce Commission; the grant of power to suspend rate advances pending examination as to their reasonableness; and the rehabilitation of the long and short haul clause. The law was passed on June 18, 1910. Within the brief period of two years it successfully emerged from a supreme test respecting rate advances; enough experience had already been had with the new Commerce Court to warrant an opinion as to its merits as a special tribunal for the review of transportation decisions; and, finally, an opinion by the Interstate Commerce Commission was rendered, and is at this writing under review by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the most important case ever likely to arise under the long and short haul clause. Predictions were freely made in 1910 that certain shortcomings in the revised law, particularly the failure to grant control over minimum rates and the establishment of differentials between rates, would soon have to be remedied. Experience promptly threw light upon these questions also. The present is thus an opportune time to review the entire situation respecting Federal railroad regulation.