The general failure of regulation in England to accomplish what was expected of it, may suggest a broad conclusion as to this country, but a specific conclusion from any parallel to the Hepburn Bill is not possible, because no such parallel has been tried. President Hadley thinks one hearing is enough, provided it is a hearing before a court, not before the Commission. Like the railroads, President Hadley has no use for the Commission. The reason perhaps is the conscious or subconscious appreciation of the fact that rate-making involves a vigorous _administrative_ element, which the Commission has shown a tendency to use with great effectiveness, while a body constituted as a court, by its very nature and traditions, is loath to exercise administrative power or in any way disturb its exercise by the companies except on the clearest kind of proof of the adequacy of the new rate or condition proposed, which cannot in many cases be obtained at all except by _bona fide_ trial of the new rate or regulation, since a rate that is even below the present operating cost may develop traffic enough to give it ample justification. Courts do not like to trust to future proof. If rates do not seem justified on existing facts as shown by accounts presented by the companies, the courts are apt to turn the new rates down without a trial, as the United States Supreme Court did in the Nebraska case when the law of that State fixing rates on local traffic was declared unconstitutional. The companies made the division between through local costs to suit themselves, and the Court not only accepted their figures, but neglected to take into account the fact that lower rates might easily develop new traffic enough to cover the slight additional margin needed even on the companies’ own showing.