PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE. I27 



and when the same commodity is transported by two or more different modes of 

 carriage the charge should be uniform for the unit of commodity. 



Group rates,' by which a given commodity produced at different points 

 within a prescribed territory is rated as though shipped from a single point, do not 

 constitute a discrimination repugnant to the law; but this opinion is limited to 

 the cases presented and is not set forth as a general principle. 



" A rate on one commodity in a class, or on one class of commodities, cannot 

 be justly depressed so as to become a burden on the transportation of other commo- 

 dities or classes of commodities. 



" The law does not impose upon the carrier the duty of providing such a rate 

 that goods may be sold at a profit to their producers. 



" The car-load, and not the train-load, is the proper transportation unit, but 

 higher charges may be made for goods in less than car-load lots; with this excep- 

 tion, the decisions of the commission have been consistently against the application 

 of the ' wholesale ' principle in the adjustment of railway charges." 



" Not only must a just schedule of rates rest on a just base, but the relative 

 rates on competitive articles must be such as not to disturb the natural order of 

 competition. 



" A just schedule of rates will conform to the competitive equities that exist 

 between goods shipped at different stages in the process of their manufacture. 



"All shippers should have at their disposal equal facilities of transportation; 

 but in judging of local advantages, care must be taken not to confound those that 

 are artificial with those that are natural. 



X. 



It has to be added that the experience of the United States has established 

 beyond controversy that in order to the successful operation of railway commis- 

 sions authority must be granted to compel witnesses to testify, that the investiga- 

 tions of a commission must be final on matters of fact, that an order of the commis- 

 sion must be enforced unless the courts shall find some material error in its pro- 

 ceeding and judgment, and that a commission must have the right to prescribe a 

 reasonable rate, as well as to declare that a rate fixed by a carrier is unreasonable. 

 The closing words of Mr. Adams' sane and moderate paper are well worth quoting. 

 He says : " The record of the Interstate Commerce Commission during the past 

 ten years, as it bears upon the theory of public control over monopolistic industries 

 through the agency of commissions, cannot be accepted as in any sense final. It 

 may ultimately prove to be the case, as Ulrich declares, that there is no compromise 

 between public ownership and management on the one hand and private ownership . 

 and management on the other; but one has no right to quote the ten years' ex- 

 perience of the Interstate Commerce Commission in support of such a declaration. 

 This is true, because the law itself scarcely proceeded beyond the limit of suggesting 

 certain principles and indicating certain processes, and Congress has not, by the 

 amendments passed since 1887, shown much solicitude respecting the efficiency of 

 the Act. It is true, also, because the courts have thought it necessary to deny 

 certain authorities claimed by the commission, and again. Congress has not 

 shown itself jealous for the dignity of the administrative body which it created. 

 And, finally, it is true because the duty of administering the Act was imposed upon 

 the commission without adequate provision in the way of administrative machin- 

 ery, and ten years is too short a time to create that machinery, when every 

 step is to be contested by all the processes known to corporation law- 

 yers. For the public the case stands where it stood ten years ago. Now, as 

 then, it is necessary to decide on the basis of theory, and in the light of political, 

 social and industrial considerations rather than on the basis of a satisfactory test, 

 whether the railways shall be controlled by the Government without being owned 



