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
What reason is there to believe that the railroads will accept a new
statute in good faith and obey it any more than any former law? On the
contrary, the probability is that if the Hepburn Bill becomes a law
the main effect will be to compel railway managers and counsel to sit
up nights for a time planning methods to evade and overcome the new
provisions. Even if Congress gave the full power at first demanded by
the President, to fix the precise rate to be charged, the general
effect would probably be that railways would exert themselves to
control the Commission. They have always at hand the weapon of
practically interminable litigation, and it is very doubtful whether
the railroad representatives in the United States Senate will permit
any law to pass until it is amended so that the review in the courts
shall go to the merits of the Commission’s order in each case.
Powerful interests are opposed to any provision that will permit the
fixing of a rate, even a maximum, to go into effect before it is
connected already with the Federal courts.
Footnote 387:
See statement earlier in this discussion.
Footnote 388:
Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3485.
Footnote 389:
Dept. of Commerce, Monthly Summary, April, 1900, p. 3991.
Footnote 390:
See Ind. Com. vols. iv and ix, and Hudson, Hadley, etc.
Footnote 391:
They tend to stability, economy, and efficiency, diminishing the
fluctuation of rates, railroad wars, and the wastes of competition,
and improving the service by better co-ordination, distribution of
traffic, etc.
Footnote 392:
See the powerful statements of President Ingalls, President Fish, Paul
Morton, Professor Seligman, Commissioner Prouty, etc., Ind. Com. vol.
iv; and statements of Professor Ripley, Morawetz, Fordyce, etc., Sen.
Com. 1905. It is absurd to forbid co-operation for the maintenance of
reasonable rates and prevention of superfluous transportation, or any
other honest purpose. Traffic agreements may secure a co-ordination of
service approaching that which would be attained by unity of
management. The fetish-worship of competition is one of the prime
curses of our economic ignorance. We might as well worship
destruction, injustice, and inefficiency. Moreover, competition of the
kind that protects the public from oppressive rates cannot be
maintained in the railway world. Let the railways unite, and then
control them, insisting on the dominance of the public interest so far
as necessary to accomplish justice.
Footnote 393:
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