court to which such petition shall have been so presented a duly certified copy of its entire record in connection with the order to be reviewed, including petition, answers, testimony, report and opinion of the Commission, its order, and all other papers whatsoever in connection therewith. The court shall thereupon proceed to hear the same upon the petition, record, and testimony returned by the Commission; or, in its discretion, may, upon the application of either party, and in such manner as it shall direct, cause additional testimony to be taken; and thereupon if, after hearing, said court shall be of the opinion that said order was made under some error of law, or is, upon the facts, unjust or unreasonable, it shall modify, set aside, or annul the same by appropriate decree; otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. Pending such review, however, the court may, upon application and hearing, if in its opinion the order is clearly unlawful or erroneous, suspend said order. Any party to the cause may, within thirty days of the rendition of any final decree of said court, appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which court shall proceed to hear and determine such appeal. But neither the order of the circuit court nor the execution of any writ or process thereon shall be stayed or suspended during the pendency of such appeal. The said several courts of the United States shall be and are vested with full jurisdiction and all necessary powers in the premises. The case in both the circuit court and the Supreme Court shall have precedence over all except criminal cases.

SEC. 4. That the defense in all such proceedings for review shall be undertaken by the United States district attorney for the district wherein the action is brought, under the direction of the AttorneyGeneral of the United States, and the costs and expenses of such defense shall be paid out of the appropriations for the expense of the courts of the United States. The Commission may, with the consent of the Attorney-General, employ special counsel in any proceeding under this Act, paying the expense of such employment out of its own appropriation.

SEC. 5. That if any party bound thereby shall refuse or neglect to obey or perform any order of the Commission mentioned in section one of this Act at any time while the same is in force, obedience and performance thereof shall be summarily enforced by writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory, or otherwise, which shall be issued by any circuit court of the United States upon petition of said Commission or of any party interested, accompanied by a certified copy of the order alleged to be violated and evidence of the violation alleged, and in addition thereto the offending party shall be subject to a penalty of five thousand dollars for each day of the continuance of such violation, which, together with costs of suit, shall be recoverable by said Commission by action of debt in any circuit court of the United States, and when so recovered shall be for the use of the United States.

SEC. 6. That all Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, but such repeal shall not affect causes now pending in court nor rights which have already accrued, but such causes shall be prosecuted to a conclusion and such rights enforced in a manner heretofore provided by aw. All existing laws relative to testimony in cases or proceedings under or connected with the Act to regulate commerce shall also apply to any case or proceeding authorized by this Act.

SEC. 7. That this Act shall take effect from its passage.

DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE INTERSTATE COM

MERCE COMMISSION.

U. S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,

December 16, 1904.

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD P. BACON.

The CHAIRMAN. Please state your full name, Mr. Bacon; where you reside, your business, and whom you represent here to-day.

Mr. BACON. My full name is Edward P. Bacon; I reside at Milwaukee; I am engaged in the grain business in that city.

I appear before you, gentlemen, as the chairman of the executive committee of the Interstate Commerce Law Convention which was held in St. Louis October 28 and 29 last, that being the second meeting of that convention, the first meeting having been held November 20, 1900. That convention consisted of 300 delegates, from more than 170 different organizations. The convention was called for the purpose of expediting legislation for amendment to the interstate-commerce act to enlarge the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission so as to give the act greater effectiveness. A petition was adopted by the convention for the enactment of such legislation, a copy of which petition has been sent to each member of this committee and of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Senator CULLOM. Will you state whether you are going to speak to any bill before this committee?

Mr. BACON. I had not desired so to do. In fact, I have not appeared for the purpose of presenting any argument, but simply to present the matter generally for your consideration, with the earnest desire on the part of the convention I represent that some legislation to this effect be immediately enacted.

Senator TILLMAN. In other words, the President has sent us one message and you bring another from the people?

Mr. BACON. We bring one from the people-from all the people. 1 do not here represent a particular class not the shippers alone, but I represent the entire community, consumers and producers, as well as shippers, the consumers and producers being in fact much more largely interested in this subject than the shippers themselves by reason of the fact that the freights paid by shippers are simply paid by them as middle men, and the increased cost, if any, is passed over to the people in the increased price the consumers pay for the agricultural or marketable products of the country.

I wish particularly to say that it seems to our committee-and it was so expressed at the convention that there have been ample hearings on this question before the committees of Congress during the past

5

five years, first in regard to the Cullom bill, presented in the FiftySixth Congress, and also in the Fifty-seventh Congress, in regard to the Nelson-Corliss bill and the Elkins bill, and in the present Congress on the Quarles-Cooper bill, or Cooper-Quarles bill, as it should properly be called. It has been fully investigated in each of those three Congresses-the Fifty-sixth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth. Extensive hearings were held by this committee as far back as the Fifty-sixth Congress, hearings occupying a considerable length of time--I do not recall now exactly how long-but the subject was gone into very thoroughly. People appeared here from all parts of the country, representing shippers, and presented their views in relation to the legislation desired. In the Fifty-seventh Congress extensive hearings were held before the Interstate Commerce Committees of both the Senate and House, and in the House committee the hearings extended over a period of two months and a half, some twenty-five hearings having been held. People were here from all parts of the country to present their views at those hearings, which were probably more complete and full than those in regard to any other plan ever presented before these committees.

In addition to that the Industrial Commission held hearings for three and a half years upon the subject of the industries of the country and the transportation problem, and that Commission presented a full report to Congress of those hearings, in the course of which this subject was gone into exhaustively in the sittings of that Commission in the different centers of the country, covering probably more than a year's time. The results of that investigation are available to this committee, and to the House committee as well, of course, in regard to the consideration of the subject.

What I desire particularly to emphasize is that our side desires no further hearings. We feel that the subject has been exhausted. We do not wish to be put to the expense and delay of repeating or reiterating the testimony previously presented. The conditions have not materially changed since the full hearings of the Fifty-seventh Congress, and consequently there is nothing new to be offered. We rest our case upon what we have already adduced at those hearings, reserving simply the right to offer anything necessary in rebuttal of what may be offered by the other side in regard to the question.

What bill do you

I shall now be pleased to answer any questions. The CHAIRMAN. The Nelson bill was before us. rely upon and stand by now-the Quarles Senate bill?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. That is identical with the Cooper House bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Nelson bill was considered by this committee, and here is the Quarles bill, being Senate bill No. 2439.

Mr. BACON. I ought to have said that the Quarles bill simply renews the Elkins bill which was before the Fifty-seventh Congress, with the omission of the pooling sections which that bill contained and the discriminative section which has been superseded by the bill enacted in February, 1903, known as the Elkins anti-rebate law.

The CHAIRMAN. The Nelson bill was discussed quite at length before this committee, and hearings were had. I do not think we have had any direct hearings upon the Quarles bill, have we?

Mr. BACON. I think the chairman did not understand my last remark, that the Quarles bill is simply a renewal of the Elkins bill. Did the Chairman understand that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understood that part. The question now before us is in regard to making operative the orders made by the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the party or parties against whom they are issued.

Mr. BACON. That is simply a repetition of what was in the Elkins bill before the committee two years ago.

Senator CULLOM. As I am not familiar with what the bill contains at all, I should be glad to have Mr. Bacon discuss it section by section, if he will do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bacon has very intelligently discussed the original bill, and incidentally, I suppose, a good deal of what is in the Quarles bill; but I think it would be well for the committee to hear Mr. Bacon in a general way, as suggested by the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BACON. I will do so with pleasure. I will say that there is nothing contained in the Quarles bill which was not contained in the Elkins bill which was before you two years ago. As originally introduced, that bill was amended at the suggestion of our committee by the parties at whose instance it was introduced-the Pennsylvania Railroad Company-and was adopted by the committee which I represent as a substitute for the Nelson-Corliss bill, which had been considered by this committee.

Senator CULLOM. If you have the bill before you perhaps it would be well to confine your remarks to the bill before the committee, if you can do so.

Mr. BACON. I will premise that the Nelson bill, which was before you at the same time that the Elkins bill was, contains the same provisions in regard to the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission in regard to revising rates that the Quarles bill contains. The purposethe sole purpose, I may say-of this Quarles bill is to clothe the Commission with the specific authority

The CHAIRMAN. Please state what authority.

Senator CULLOM. State the provisions of the bill-what power it carries.

Mr. BACON. When a rate has been found, after complaint and investigation, to be unreasonable or discriminative, the power to change that rate or to make any regulation affecting the rate is given. the Commission, and that that change shall go into immediate effect pending appeal or review by the courts. Provision is made in the bill for review of the order of the Commission, upon the application of

a carrier.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. BACON. That is what I mean.

Senator DOLLIVER. In what respect does that differ from the present law?

Mr. BACON. The present law provides that upon a hearing and finding of a rate to be unreasonable or unjust, which is the term used in the act, it shall so declare, and shall notify the carrier to cease and desist from the continuance of such violation of the act. The carrier is left free to make such change in that rate condemned by the Commission as it may choose. It has sometimes occurred-often, in factthat, instead of making a change of rate to meet the intent and requirements of the case, it has made only a slight change, in that way technically complying with the requirements of the act.

Senator DOLLIVER. Have you in mind any case in which that happened?

Mr. BACON. Several cases; yes.

Senator DOLLIVER. I should be glad to have a memorandum of the cases in which that happened.

Mr. BACON. I shall be very glad to furnish you with it.

Complying with Senator Cullom's request, I will say that this opportunity for review is provided in this bill for the purpose of expediting proceedings and avoiding the necessity of serving injunctions and such processes to prevent the carrying into effect of the orders of the Commission, the review being a quicker process.

It is further provided that this review shall take precedence over any except criminal cases, and any appeal from the circuit court to the Supreme Court shall also take precedence over any except criminal

cases.

It is also provided that the order of the circuit court shall be in force and effect pending appeal to the Supreme Court; that if the circuit court affirms the order of the Commission, nothing shall suspend the operation of that order. It is provided, however, that the circuit court may suspend such order pending the hearing of the case before that court, in order that the railways may have the opportunity, in case of manifest injustice, to have the operation of the order of the Commission suspended. But after the circuit court has acted and affirmed the order of the Commission, the order is in full force until reversed by the Supreme Court.

Then there is a section providing that if the carrier refuses to comply with the order of the Commission when in force it shall be subjected to a penalty of $5,000 for each day's continuance of noncompliance.

Those points cover the provisions of the bill in full.

I shall be glad to answer any further questions.

Senator TILLMAN. I understand that you represent the shippers' interests. Are you willing to have suspended the order granted by the Commission pending investigation?

Mr. BACON. We are not only willing, but we expressly desire it. Senator TILLMAN. In other words, you do not agree with the President. The President says such order shall remain in effect until the court itself rescinds its action.

Mr. BACON. The President did not go into details.

Senator TILLMAN. We simply have to read what he said.

Mr. BACON. He announced his purposes and desires, but the bill goes more into detail, and provides for the review by the circuit court in order that if there be manifest injustice in the order of the Commission it may be suspended so that the railways shall not be wrongfully dealt with.

Senator CULLOM. Complaint is made by the people in some localities that the rates from their places to some shipping point-Chicago, for instance, if it is out West-are too high. The Commission goes to that place, investigates the subject, hears testimony, and finally determines that the rates were too high, and so orders; then they also make an order providing for what they regard as a reasonable rate below the former rate. Does that order take effect, under this bill, immediately upon issuance?

Mr. BACON. It takes effect unless the carriers apply to the circuit