The Railroad Question: A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abusesLarrabee, William
History
The Railroad Question: A historical and practical treatise on railroads, and remedies for their abuses
Larrabee, William
Railroads; Railroads -- United States; Railroads and state -- United States
When the law was passed its friends well realized that its success would
greatly depend on the character of the commissioners whom it was
incumbent upon the President to appoint. It was feared that if the
railroad influence should control these appointments, the power to
suspend the long and short haul clause would be the chief and perhaps
the only power exercised by the commission. There was great danger that
the office of Interstate Commerce Commissioner might become a sinecure
for servile railroad lawyers, as similar State officers had been before,
and that a public trust might be turned into an additional corporation
agency for evil. The selection of the commissioners, and especially that
of Judge T. M. Cooley, of Michigan, was greatly to the credit of
President Cleveland. A man of unquestionable integrity, an eminent
jurist and close student of railroad affairs, Judge Cooley was
particularly well qualified for the office of chairman of the Interstate
Commerce Commission, which he occupied for nearly five years with signal
fitness, and from which he only retired to the sincere regret of the
American people. Under Judge Cooley's leadership the commission has been
more than a purely executive board. It was under the Constitution not in
the power of Congress to clothe the Interstate Commerce Commission with
full judicial authority without giving its members, like other Federal
judges, tenure for life, instead of a term of years. The inherent force
of the commission's decisions in its interpretation of the law made them
in many cases virtually the equivalent of judicial rulings.
A few of the most important decisions of the commission may be mentioned
here. Construing the long and short haul clause, they held that, in case
of complaint for violating this section of the act, "the burden of proof
is on the carrier to justify any departure from the general rule
described by the statute, by showing that the circumstances and
conditions are substantially dissimilar." They also decided that "when a
greater charge in the aggregate is made for the transportation of
passengers or the like kind of property for a shorter than a longer
distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being
included in the longer distance, it is not sufficient justification
therefor that the traffic which is subjected to such greater charge is
way or local traffic and that which is given the more favorable rates is
not; and that it is not "sufficient justification for such greater
charge that the short-haul traffic is more expensive to the carrier,
unless when the circumstances are such as to make it exceptionally
excessive, or the long-haul traffic exceptionally inexpensive, the
difference being extraordinary and susceptible of definite proof; nor
that the lesser charge on the longer haul has for its motive the
encouragement of manufactures or some other branch of industry, nor that
it is designed to build up business or trade centers."
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