The existing law authorizes carriers to make reasonable rates. Congress recognizing the right of control by the carrier has provided reasonable regulations to safeguard the interests of the public in the exercise of that right. It authorizes a protest after the rate had gone into effect; it provides for a full hearing after notice by the commission; it has further extended the time when the rate shall be made effective to thirty days from the filing of the schedule with the commission. These were held to be reasonable regulations, but it is claimed that under the amendment proposed to the sixth section, that if the rate is suspended from going into effect at the end of the thirty days by a protest, there is no limitation in the act fixing the time when the commission shall determine the question of the reasonableness of the advance; that the period is therefore indefinite, depending upon numerous considerations which might extend the time when the rate would be effective, if it was finally held to be reasonable, to six months or a year. That the act of suspension either by the operation of the statute or by the commission is without notice or hearing to the carrier; that Congress has no greater right to authorize an administrative tribunal to suspend indefinitely the taking effect of a reasonable rate without notice or hearing than it has the right to provide that an administrative tribunal may authorize a rate which would yield less than the cost of the service. It was decided in the case of Chicago, M. & St. P. R. R. Co. against Minnesota, 134 U. S., 418, that the right to make a reasonable rate was a property right. In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission _v._ Chicago Great Western Ry., 209 U. S., 118, the Supreme Court said: "It must be remembered that railroads are the private property of their owners; that while from the public character of the work in which they are engaged the public has the power to prescribe rules for securing faithful and efficient service and equality between shippers and communities, yet in no proper sense is the public a general manager." Justice Brewer, in the above case, page 108, speaking for the court said: "It must also be remembered that there is no presumption of wrong arising from a change of rate by a carrier. The presumption of honest intent and right conduct attends the action of carriers as well as it does the action of other corporations or individuals in their transactions in life. Undoubtedly when rates are changed the carrier making the change must, when properly called upon, be able to give a good reason therefor, but the mere fact that a rate has been raised carries with it no presumption that it was not rightfully done. Those presumptions of good faith and integrity which have been recognized for ages as attending human action have not been overthrown by any legislation in respect to common carriers."