84 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



IV 



There is no doubt of the competency of the State to prescribe the weight of a 

 loaf of bread, as it may declare what weight shall constitute a pound or a ton. 

 But I deny the power of any Legislature under our government to fix the price 

 which one shall receive for his property of any kind. If the power can be exer- 

 cised as to one article, it may as to all articles, and the prices of everything, 

 from a calico gown to a city mansion, may be the subject of legislative di- 

 rection.* 



So wrote Justice Field in a dissenting opinion in Munn v. Illinois. 

 In the light of the general trend of court decisions as well as of legislation, 

 it is apparent that this view is altogether too sweeping. If the highest 

 court in the land has occasionally set at naught the railway legislation 

 of congress and of the states, it has also brought the railways within 

 the condemnation of the anti-trust act in the Trans-Missouri Freight, 

 Joint Traffic and Northern Securities cases. Moreover, adverse court 

 decisions have in large measure been overcome by additional legislation. 

 Probably not a single member of the Supreme Bench to-day regards the 

 view expressed by Justice Field as good law. 



There has been a marked tendency during the last decade to clothe 

 the railway commissions of the several states with more drastic powers. 

 Some states have even gone so far as to fix rates by legislative enactment 

 in addition to creating a commission with mandatory power. 



No less than fifteen new or remodeled commissions were created in the two 

 years 1905-1907, bringing the total number by 1908 to thirty-nine. Practically 

 all of these were of the so-called "strong" type; that is to say, possessing the 

 most extensive powers over all matters of rate operation and in many cases of 

 finance as well. The most notable of these, of course, were the so-called Public 

 Utility Commissions of Wisconsin (1905) and New York (1907). The subjuga- 

 tion of the formerly dominant railway interests in New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

 was also highly significant. The movement has even invaded the New England 

 States — so long a sanctuary of the ' ' weak ' ' or advisory commission. Vermont 

 and New Hampshire set up powerful boards, . . .5 



The consolidation of railways, the rise of freight rates in the years 

 following 1900, " the inordinate concentration of financial power in the 

 hands of a few privileged individuals," and the power of the newly 

 created industrial combinations to secure concessions in rates contrib- 

 uted to this result. 6 The same conditions have made for more stringent 

 federal control of the railways. Even Massachusetts has given up 

 her advisory commission. For years this staid old commonwealth 

 stood out for a "weak" commission. It was confidently claimed that 

 such a commission had all the advantages of one of the strong type 

 minus the disadvantages. On the one hand, if backed by public opinion, 



Elkins Act, Amending the Act to Eegulate Commerce," ibid., Vol. 24, 1910, pp. 

 593-633. 



* United States Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 94, 1876, p. 93. 



s William Z. Eipley, ' ' Eailroads, Rates and Regulation, ' ' p. 629. 



e Ibid., pp. 487-492. 



