154 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



secure quick comparatively cheap relief to those who could not afford the ex- 

 penses of a long lawsuit. 



It was avowedly an experiment — originally established for five years, renewed 

 only for still shorter periods. It is neither a complete success nor a decided 

 failure. Its best work is its indirect work. The fact that such a tribunal is there 

 prevents a great many disputes from arising, and acts as a check upon arbitrary 

 power. But the evidence before the committee of 1881-82 showed that its direct 

 results left much to be desired. It was only empowered to deal with cases under 

 the act of 1854, so that it often suffered for want of jurisdiction. It could not 

 enforce decrees of mandamus. It could not prevent appeals from being taken to 

 a superior court, so that if the railroad companies chose to contest the case it cost 

 the complainant about as much time and money under the new system as under 

 the old. The Commission suffered because its powers were so ill-defined. Some 

 of these difficulties it is now proposed to remove. The effect of Mr. Chamber- 

 lain's bill, if adopted, would be to bring the powers of the Commissioners much 

 nearer to those of an ordinary court of law. It gives them jurisdiction under the 

 special railroad acts as well as under the general act of 1854. It enables them 

 to enforce their authority like any other couji. For the roundabout modes of pro- 

 cedure hitherto in use it substitutes an explicit right of appeal under some restric- 

 tions which are perhaps more apparent than real. Appeal is granted only in 

 those cases where it shall be specially admitted either by the commissioners 

 themselves or by a court of appeal. Of course the last exception makes the whole 

 restriction amount to very httle, though the railroad companies object strenu- 

 ously that their right to appeal is too much restricted. 



It is proposed to make the Commission permanent. No further change is 

 to be made in its constitution. Many of the railroad men would have preferred a 

 Commission composed entirely of lawyers, but the parliamentary committee consid- 

 ered this as out of the question. Provision is made by Mr. Chamberlain's bill 

 for the occasional employment of technical assistance (assessors) in cases where 

 it may be demanded. 



The matter of direct control over rates is not settled by the proposed bill, 

 and remains pretty much where it was before. On one point there is a curious 

 compromise. The State has always exercised a certain control over the mileage 

 rates of the English railroads, but the roads have claimed the right to make an 

 arbitrary terminal charge — not merely the "handling terminals," for loading and 

 unloading, but the "station terminals," for use of sidings, expense of signal men, 

 interest on station buildings, etc. Under this head of station terminals the roads 

 have claimed the right to charge what they pleased. The Commissioners have, 

 in a very recent decision, denied their right to make any charge at all, holding 

 that the legal mileage rates were intended to cover everything but "handling 

 terminals." The present bill proposes that reasonable station terminals be grant- 

 ed to those roads (and only those) which submit a revised classification of goods 

 under which their mileage rates may be regulated. 



These are but a few among many provisions; but they are the only ones 



