RATE REGULATION
RAILROAD RATE REGULATION LEGISLATION CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL QUESTIONS NOT MANY OR DIFFICULT BY HON. WILLIAM E. CHANDLER THE railroad question now pending in May 5, 1905, to the Senate Committee on Congress is not complicated nor does Interstate Commerce. This committee had it raise serious legal doubts. The simple no right to require an opinion and it wasproposition of the President is that when a most unusual for the Attorney-General to complaint is made to the Interstate Com give an opinion to a Committee of Congress; merce Commission that a particular rate but he thought the public interest would charged by a railroad for the transportation be promoted, and after careful consideration of a specified kind of merchandise, or for he sent an opinion which is so full and the carriage of passengers, is unreasonably well-reasoned that it should command the high, the Commission, after a hearing, may attention of every person interested in the decide that the complaint is just and may legal questions considered. Copies may be fix a new rate which shall take the place obtained by writing to him or to any senator of the old rate and go into immediate effect, or member of Congress. Corporations being the creatures of legis that is, within a short period of about thirty days; the remedial rate thus fixed not to be lative power are, of course, absolutely sub increased without either the consent of the . ject, so far as their existence is concerned, Commission or a decision by a court that to the will of future legislatures. The power that can create can also destroy. A it will be confiscatory in its effect. The railroad counter-proposition is that limitation, however, clearly exists as to the the roads shall not be interfered with as to power of the legislature over the property any freight or passenger charges which of a corporation whose existence it chooses they may choose to make and collect, un to terminate. That property belongs to less a court upon due complaint made by a the stockholders, cannot be taken from person aggrieved and proofs submitted, them, and may be taken possession of by shall decide that the rates are unreasonably a court of equity and held and adminis tered or disposed of for the benefit of its high and should be prohibited. The Constitutional power of Congress to lawful owners. (Greenwood v. R.R. Co., 105 U. S. 13.) But even with this limita establish in due form the first of the fore going methods does not seem to be seri tion existing there is ample power in the ously disputed. (The Granger Cases. See legislatures which created the various rail 108 U. S. 526, 541, and 118 U. S. 557.) The road companies to fully control the rates railroads do indeed urge that it is an unjust of charge for fares and freights. No con interference with the rights of private prop tract rights have been given to them which erty belonging to the owners of the rail entitle them perpetually to operate their roads; while the shippers say as to the roads. Any requirement whatever imposed second method that it is either a futile and by the legislatures may be enforced by the worthless remedy or else will compel the provision that if the companies do not for mally agree and submit to the same they courts to perform a non-judicial function. Such legal questions as may arise in con shall cease to exist as corporations. If such nection with rate legislation by Congress an extinction takes place and a court of have been carefully considered by Attorney- equity takes possession of the railroad for General Moody in an opinion given on its owners it can only operate it through a.
