The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countriesParsons, Frank
History
The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countries
Parsons, Frank
Railroads -- Freight -- Rates -- United States; Railroads and state -- United States
Another railroad president turns the lime-light of mathematical analysis
on the errors of the Commission. David Willcox, President of the
Delaware and Hudson, says: “About 93 percent of the decisions of the
Commission which have been passed upon by the courts have been held to
be erroneous. In case, therefore, the Commission had the future
rate-fixing power, so far as its decisions were in force until the
courts passed upon them, injustice would be accomplished in 93 percent
of the cases. For this there would be no remedy, because no recovery
could be had from those whose goods had been carried at unjustly low
rates.”[400]
We shall see that this statement gives too strong an impression of the
capacity of the Commission for mistakes, but there is no doubt that it
has made mistakes, that any person or persons attempting to fix rates,
even the railroad managers themselves, are liable to make mistakes, and
that losses result to the roads from their own mistakes and might
naturally result from the mistakes of a commission or court if its
erroneous orders were enforced upon them.
It may be said that if the orders of the Commission went into force
immediately it would be the interest of the railroads to hasten the
proceedings in court instead of prolonging them indefinitely as they are
too apt to do, and that with reasonable provisions for prompt
adjudication and the stimulus of powerful railroad interests in that
direction, the delay of the law, or this branch of it, at least, would
vanish. It may also be said that the railroads could recoup themselves
for the losses under discussion by curtailing the service they render
for the new rates, or by raising other rates not fixed by the
Commission. But the Commission might veto the raising of other rates,
and the entailment of service would be very undesirable. The question
arises whether it would not be fair for the public to stand any loss
clearly resulting from an improper order of its Commission, or else
require that any order the validity of which is questioned should be
passed upon by the court before it is put into effect? The Commission is
itself perhaps a sufficient court in respect to questions of fact, and
if it were arranged that in case of dispute on a question of law the
Commission might call upon the Supreme Court for an immediate
interpretation of the law, the rulings of the Commission could be
squared with the law at the start, and the danger of loss from an
erroneous order would be reduced to a minimum.
As above remarked, the mistakes of the Commission have not been so vast
as the reader might infer from the percentage of overruled cases stated
by President Willcox.
The work of the Commission may be summarized as follows:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account