A railway company serves the public, that is what it is organized to do. Those who apply for the corporate franchises do not apply for an altruistic purpose. They wish it because they think they can make profit out of it, and that is legitimate, but the state grants it for the public use. And so it comes about that the state has the power to regulate it. Mark what I say, to regulate it, to prevent it from exacting extortionate rates from the people; to prevent it from putting upon the people abuses in its management, but that does not mean that the state may take its property. That does not mean that the state may take its management out of the hands of its owners. It means simply that the state may protect the public from any abdication by it or violation by it of its duty as a common carrier, and this principle is too often forgotten. In these days regulation has apparently achieved a wider field for operation, and is deemed to be broad enough to regulate not only the property and the management of the property, but the management of everybody connected with it. That won't do. Why, I see it is stated in the report of your Business Association that commissions which have been organized by the states and the Commission organized under the act of Congress, have come to stay. Of course they have come--we know that, and we know another thing, that whenever a governmental commission comes, it stays. The commissions in the states, most of the states--God knows I wish I could say all the states, but I can not truthfully--have subserved a useful purpose. The state lays down the rule and the commission administers the law. There is one thing about a commission in the regulation under the law of railway carriers which places it in respect of proprietary, fairness and fitness for that function, far above Congress or any other legislative body, and that is this: That they have time to listen, to investigate, to get at the truth, which a legislative body does not have time to do in the very nature of things. I do not know, but I think nothing added more to the reputation of Governor Charles E. Hughes, of New York, than the fact that he refused to sign a bill, but vetoed it, reducing the rates which railway companies might charge, upon the ground that there had been no investigation which enabled fair judgment as to what was fair treatment to the railway corporations.