Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:43:32.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Special Interests and the Interstate Commerce Commission, II*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

E. Pendleton Herring
E. Pendleton Herring
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the juristic sphere, the Interstate Commerce Commission is charged with enforcing and interpreting certain statutes, hearing and weighing evidence, and rendering formal judgment when the facts have been ascertained. But the recognized judicial character of this work does not render the Commission immune from efforts to influence its judgments. The struggles of contending economic groups and political influences give rise to actions intolerable in a court of law and to repeated efforts to obtain favorable decisions through the use of propaganda. The Commission performs its duties in surroundings far from neutral, and must cope with pressures too powerful to be exorcised by simple exhortation or condemnation. The problem is one of canalizing influences which cannot be eliminated, to the end that they may increase rather than decrease the efficiency of the administrative process and that the public interest may not be submerged in the undertow of sectional and political cross-currents.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , December 1933 , pp. 899 - 917
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The first instalment of this article appeared in the October issue.

References

19 The following interchange between a senator and a commissioner over the suspension of rates for wheat shipments to the Pacific coast illustrates the point:

Senator Wheeler: But the real reason why it was done, the fundamental reason why it was done, was because of the fact of the protest of the farmers of the Northwest … and the Interstate Commerce Commission took the view of the farmers.

Mr. Woodlock: Quite true, and the farmers were right.

Senator Wheeler: And they did it because of the fact that they wanted to help the farmer.

Mr. Woodlock: The farmer was right.

Senator Wheeler: Of course he was right.

Mr. Woodlock: The rate was right.

Nomination of Thomas F. Woodlock. Hearings before Committee on Interstate Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 1926, p. 64.

20 The Interstate Commerce Commission, vol. I, p. 200 Google Scholar.

21 42 Stat. 827, amending Sec. 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act, pars. (2) and (3). Cf. Sharfman, op. cit., p. 227.

22 A Legislative History of the Hoch-Smith Resolution, by Examiner Wagner, Warren H. of the I.C.C. (1925)Google Scholar.

23 Each side fought for freight rates that would enable it to dispose of its products to advantage in the lake cargo coal trade. See Mansfield, Harvey C., The Lake Cargo Coal Rate Controversy (New York, 1932)Google Scholar.

24 Nomination of Cyrus Woods. [Senate] Hearings before Committee on Interstate Commerce, 69th Cong., 2nd Sess., Jan., 1927, p. 133.

25 Ibid., p. 68.

26 Cong. Record, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1925 [Senate], pp. 1252–58, for debate on representative character of I.C.C.

27 Nomination of Woodlock. [Senate] Hearings before Committee on Interstate Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 1926, pp. 62–63.

28 The Five Per Cent Case, 31 I.C.C. 351, pp. 425 ff.

29 Congressional Record, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 8859 et seq. (May 12, 1914). On pp. 8866–9224, the Senator had printed about four hundred pages of exhibits, including bulletins, pamphlets, and addresses issued by the railroad publicity bureau or made by railroad officials; newspaper stories and magazine articles; copies of editorials sent to the I.C.C. to suggest the public reaction; communications from individuals sent to the President, cabinet officers, and congressmen, and forwarded to the Commission; letters showing the agitation on the part of bankers and business men for a rate increase; and resolutions from boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and manufacturers' associations. For an account of the agitation of the railroads before Congress in connection with the Elkins Act of 1903, see Ripley, W. Z. Railroads, Rates, and Regulations (1912), pp. 496–498 Google Scholar, which shows a similar publicity campaign directed in this case to influence legislation.

30 Railway Age, Dec. 3, 1921, p. 1075.

31 Railway Age, Jan. 12, 1929 p. 136.

32 General Executive Committee Report of Railway Business Association. Railway Age, November 24, 1928, Vol. 85, no. 21, pp. 1021–2Google Scholar.

33 Fifteen Per Cent Case, 45 I.C.C. 303, p. 316.

34 U. S. Daily, June 29, 1929.

35 Charles E. Cotterill, in address to traffic clubs as reported in Railway Age, May 3, 1930, p. 1070 Google Scholar.

36 Canons of Ethics and Rules of Procedure of the Professional Ethics and Grievances Committee.” The following excerpts are particularly pertinent:

“4. Attempts to Exert Political Influence on the Commission.

It is unethical for a practitioner to attempt to sway the judgment of the Commission by propaganda, or by enlisting the influence or intercession of members of Congress or other public officers, or by threats of political or personal reprisal.

5. Attempts to Exert Personal Influence on the Commission.

Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a practitioner to a commissioner, examiner, or other representative of the Commission, uncalled for and unwarranted by the personal relations of the parties, subject both to misconstruction of motive and should be avoided. A self-respecting independence in the discharge of duty, without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due the official station, is the only proper foundation for cordial personal and official relations between the Commission and practitioners.”

37 Testimony of Mr. Belcher, [Senate] Hearings before Committee on Interstate Commerce, 69th Cong., 2nd Sess., Jan. 1927, p. 79.