coal trade bulletin - Clpdigital.org

commissions that should have power to require the
discontinuance of any trade arrangement found
inimical to the public welfare.
Ultimately also it will probably be found necessary
to give the commissions the same authority
in regulating prices that the State and Interstate
Commerce commissions have in regulating rates
for the public utilities. The burden of fixing
prices should rest with the operators; but whenever
any man feels that a price is unreasonable, he
should have the right to have his case brought
before a commission for adjudication. If, after
investigation, any price is found to be unreasonable,
the commission should have authority to issue
an order that it be made reasonable.
I am aware that the above suggestion regarding
price regulation has been vigorously attacked;
but it should be understood that the proposal does
not involve the initiative in fixing prices.
Wherever a business is not so large as to be
affected by a public interest, the principles of
trade which are now in force would hold in regard
to prices; and this statement means that the great
MAJORITY OF PRICES
would be controlled by the present system, as imperfect
as it is. However, wherever co-operation
and combination are permitted in such a manner
as to lead to a situation where the market is controlled,
it is clear that the public cannot be protected
under these conditions unless represented
by some authority having power to protect it, even
to the extent of regulating prices.
The proposed trade commissions should have a
number of other powers which I have not time
fully to discuss. It is clear that all unfair practices
should be prohibited; and by unfair practices
is meant to include everything covered by the
term immoral practices under the common law.
If I were to define unfair practices, it would be
that they should include all those practices of
every kind which are inimical to the welfare of the
people.
Another, and perhaps the most vital, point of
the law creating the state and interstate trade commissions
should be that when an individual is
wronged through unreasonable rates, or rebates or
other discrimination, it should be the duty of a
public commission to handle his case. The aggrieved
individual should not be obliged to carry
his case through the machinery of the courts; he
should make complaint to an administrative commission,
representing the public, and him as a part
of the public, to secure redress. This, while the
greatest, is but one of the many advantages which
may be gained through the establishment of trade
commissions, national and state. The powers of
the commissions should be granted as broad, simple
rules of law; and detailed regulations for the ad­
THE COAL TRADE BULLETIN. 53
ministration of these rules should be formulated by
the commissions.
If the views which are here presented are sound,
it is clear that it is not sufficient simply to create
trade commissions who shall act as interpreters
of the Sherman act, but that important amendments
to the Sherman act are necessary in order
to permit the magnitude necessary for efficiency,
in order to allow the co-operation imparative for
conservation, in order to protect the public.
I do not suppose that at the outset the commissions
created will receive all the powers which
they will finally possess. Indeed, while I hold
to the above principles, at first I should be conservative
in giving powers to these commissions.
The powers would be based upon the same principles
that have been applied in the pure food
laws, and in the control of the public utilities.
The American people always move slowly in these
matters, and step by step; and I should not expect
that these trade commissions, if created, would at
once be granted all the powers which they would
finally exercise. In this matter I should expect
the same slow development to take place that has
occurred regarding the commissions which
CONTROL TIIE PUBLIC UTILITIES.
More than 40 years have elapsed since the creation
of the Interstate Commerce commission.
These early commissions had the powers of recommendation,
of requiring publicity, etc. Finally
the commissions of Illinois and Iowa were given
the power to control rates, but comparatively little
came of this authority. It was not until 1905
that in Wisconsin a comprehensive law was enacted
to control the railroads. The passage of
the law was strongly resisted by the companies,
because of the fear that the proposed commission
would treat them unfairly, but the act was passed
despite their opposition. Under the law. there
were appointed in that state by Senator R. M.
I^a Follette, then governor, a scientific commission
composed of three men, one a well known lawyer,
the other a keen statistician, and the third an
eminent professor of transportation. I have heard
from many of the railroad men, including a railroad
president and some of the ablest railroad lawyers,
that the Wisconsin commission has been fair
ancl reasonable both to the railroads and to the
public. Neither side would go back to the previous
situation—upon one side hold-up bills to be
defeated by questionable methods at each session
of the legislative; upon the other side numerous
rebates and discriminations. Before we had a
railroad commission in Wisconsin there was continuous
war between the people and the railroads.
Since that commission has been created, and especially
since its authority has been extended over
all the public utilities of the state, including power
to adjust rates, we have had peace.