1. Most of the states have undertaken, through commissions, to regulate the railroads in the public interest. When it became evident that public and private interests in the railroads were so divergent, it still was not easy to determine how the public was to be safeguarded. At first, some general conditions such as maximum rates were inserted in the laws and charters; but these were not adaptable to changing conditions and, for lack of administrative agents, could not be enforced. The early efforts at state ownership were, as was noted above, futile and disastrous, the remedy of state ownership, as then applied, being worse than the disease. The old law of common carriers gave to individual shippers an uncertain redress in the courts for unreasonable rates; but the remedy was costly because the aggrieved shipper had to employ counsel, to gather evidence, and to risk the penalty of failure; it was slow, for while delay was death to the shipper's business, cases hung for months or years in the courts; it was ineffectual, for even when the case was won, the shipper was not repaid for all his losses, and the same discrimination could be immediately repeated against him and other shippers.

Railroad evils and the old legal remedies.

Attempting to remedy these evils, thirty-one of the states have appointed commissions and, as the most important states are included, this mode of regulation applies probably to four fifths of all traffic beginning and ending in a single state. These commissions differ in power, but in general they attempt to prevent excessive discrimination in rates and to check all railroad practices injurious to the public welfare. The commission principle, strongly opposed at first by the railroads, has been upheld by the courts and is now an established public policy. The state commissions, however, have fallen far short of a solution of the problem. Though they have done much to make the accounts of the railroads intelligible, something to make the rates reasonable and subject to rule, and much to educate public sentiment, on the whole their results have been disappointing. It has been difficult to get commissioners at once strong, able, and honest; the public does not yet know its own mind well enough to support the commissions properly; and - more fatal weakness still - the courts early decided that state commissions could regulate only the traffic originating and ending within the state, and this left untouched the much greater volume and more important class of interstate traffic.

Object and working of the state commissions.

Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act.

2. 1 he Interstate Commerce Commission is an agency by which it was hoped to secure a uniform national public control of railroads. Public hostility to private railroad management was greatest in the regions where the most rapid building of roads occurred from 1866 to 1873. One center of grievances was in "the granger states" of Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota; another center was in the oil regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Eastern states were not without their troubles, for the report of the Hepburn Committee of the New York legislature in 1879 shows that discrimination between shippers prevailed to an almost incredible degree in every portion of New York state. When the courts, in 1886, decided that the greater portion of the railroad rates could not be treated by state commissions, national control was loudly demanded. Scores of bills were presented to Congress between 1870 and 1886, and, despite the bitter opposition of the railroads, the Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887.

Its provisions.

The act laid down some general rules: that rates should be just and reasonable; that railroads should not pool, or agree to divide, their earnings to avoid competition; that they should, unless expressly excused, fix rates in accordance with the long- and short-haul principle (to charge no more for a shorter distance than for a longer one on the same line and in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer). The act provided for a commission of five men, to be appointed by the President, which might require uniform accounts from the railroads, and which should enforce the provisions of the act.

3. The object of the Interstate Commerce Act has been but imperfectly attained. This brief proposition sums up the story of years of efforts and defeated hopes. The powers of the commission have proved inadequate to attain the main purposes of the act - the prevention of discrimination and the securing of steady and equitable rates to all shippers. By the decisions of the federal courts, the commission's power has been reduced far below the intentions of the Congress that passed the law. The railroads have in many cases refused to obey the orders of the commission and have succeeded in maintaining their refusal. Admirable results have been secured in the way of uniform accounting, uniformity of rates has been somewhat furthered at times, and the public has been in many cases enlightened. But the greatest evils remain. Railroads still give secret rates in great numbers; many competent witnesses before the Industrial Commission in 1900 and 1901 testified that discrimination had never been worse. From time to time the recognition of the injury to dividends wrought by discriminating rates prompts some railroad to offer its cooperation to the commission, and this inspires new hopes of an effective administration of the act. The pressure of competition, however, soon forces the penitent road back into its old ways. On one thing the railroads and the commission are agreed: that pooling should be permitted, though the commission wishes to have this under strict supervision. To this point the public has not yet advanced.

Results of the act.

Despite the general acceptance now of the principle that the railroads should be controlled in the public interest, despite the barren legal triumph of the commission principle, it is evident that the railroad is not yet under social control. The future must determine whether the solution is to be found in effective public regulation or in public ownership.

The railroad problem unsolved.

Questions On Chapter 55. The Public Nature Of Railroads

1. What legal rights do the builders of a railroad have that are not enjoyed by all citizens?

2. Can you see any clear distinction between the public nature of a railroad and of a horse and carriage?

3. What harm can there be in the acceptance of passes by judges, legislators, and other public officials?

4. Ought the law prohibit the sale of tickets by " scalpers "?

5. Who has the greater political power, the president of the Pennsylvania Railroad, or the governor of that state?