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
The Bill provides that “Whenever ... the Interstate Commerce
Commission shall ... make any finding or ruling declaring any rate,
regulation or practice whatsoever affecting the transportation of
persons or property to be unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory the
Commission shall have power and it shall be its duty to declare and
order what shall be a just and reasonable rate, practice or regulation
to be ... imposed or followed in the future in place of that found to
be unreasonable” etc. It also provides that the order of the
Commission shall take effect 30 days after notice, but may on appeal
within 60 days be reviewed by a special transportation court having
exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases. By Section 12, the case is
to be reviewed on the original record, except when there is newly
discovered evidence which was not known at the hearing before the
Commission, or could not have been known with due diligence, and the
findings of fact by the Commission are _prima facie_ evidence of each
and every fact found. The only appeal from the court of transportation
is to the United States Supreme Court.
Footnote 382:
I. C. C. Rep. 1905, p. 9.
Footnote 383:
The granting of such power of inspection and publicity has been urged
by the Commission upon Congress in previous reports. On page 11 of the
Report for December, 1905, the Commission says: “We have also called
attention to the fact that certain carriers now refuse to make the
statistical returns required by the Commission. For example, railways
are required, among other things, to indicate what permanent
improvements have been charged to operating expenses. Without an
answer to this question it is impossible to determine to what extent
gross earnings have been used in improving the property and the actual
cost of operation proper.... Certain important railways decline to
furnish this information at all, and others furnish it in a very
imperfect and unsatisfactory manner.”
Footnote 384:
I. C. C. Rep. 1905, pp. 9, 10.
Footnote 385:
This clause together with the words italicized in the next paragraph
make the ruling of the Commission final so far as the merits of the
case are concerned. (See Appendix B.)
Footnote 386:
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