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
Many of the States have strong laws, but the inharmonious,
uncoordinated efforts of individual States have proved of little avail
against the giant railway systems. Of the 31 States which have
established railway commissions, 22 have given the commissions more or
less of the rate-making power. For example, the Alabama Code, 1886,
gives the Commission authority “to revise the tariffs and increase or
reduce any of the rates.” The California Constitution, 1880, confers
power “to establish rates;” Florida Laws, 1887, “to make and fix
reasonable and just rates;” Georgia Code, 1882, “to make reasonable
and just rates;” Illinois Laws, 1878, “to make for each railway a
schedule of reasonable maximum rates;” Iowa, 1888, and South Carolina,
1888, the same as Illinois; Minnesota, 1887, power “to compel railways
to adopt such rates and classification as the Commission declares to
he equal and reasonable;” South Dakota, 1890, the same; Mississippi,
1884, “to revise tariffs;” New Hampshire, 1883, “to fix tables of
maximum charges.” (See 63 N. H. 259.) Kansas: on complaint and proof
of unreasonable charge Commission may fix reasonable rates, and if
companies don’t comply they may be sued for damages. The Massachusetts
Commission has “authority to revise the tariffs and fix the rates for
the transportation of milk” (158 Mass. 1). In New York the board may
notify the railways of changes in the rates, etc., it deems requisite,
and the Supreme Court may in its discretion issue mandamus, etc.,
subject to appeal. In Nebraska the State Supreme Court has held that
general language prohibiting unreasonable rates, and giving the
Commission power to enforce the law, is sufficient to confer authority
to fix reasonable rates in place of those found unreasonable, such
authority being essential to the efficient execution of the law
against excessive rates (22 Neb. 313).
In none of the States does the power to regulate rates appear to have
produced results of much value. In some States, Georgia, Texas,
Nebraska, Iowa, etc., the power has been at times vigorously used, but
the effect has been to antagonize the railroads, which have so much
power that is beyond the reach of any State Commission that they can
arrange their tariffs and service so as to work against the aggressive
States and disgust the people with the consequences of trying to
control the rates. Senator Newlands, who is sincerely on the people’s
side in the struggle for justice in transportation, voiced the common
opinion when he said in the United States Senate, January 11, 1905,
“As to the rate-regulating power, my judgment is, and it is the belief
of almost all experienced men in this country, that the
rate-regulating power exercised by the States has not, as a rule, been
beneficially exercised.”
Footnote 381:
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