The Inter-state Law

DWashisgton, April 19.- The Inter-State Sommeree Commission has published a engthy letter replying to Communications "rom the Railroad Conductora' Association and the Traders' and Travelers' Associa;ion. The fir3t-named body asked for a lecision as to whether or not a railway company which was disposed to continue former privileges to employés oí its own or other roads in the matter oí íree transporta tion mightdo so under the law, while the Travelers' Association requested information regard ing the íree transportation oí baggage. The commission refers to the fact that ít has power only to suspend the fourth section of the act- that in reíerence to long and short hauls- and it can not take sction on other questions arising unlüss specific complaints oí violation oí the law are made. Should railways allow the employés oí other roads tn ride íree, or carry baggage of travelers without charge, and some person, íeeling aggrieved, make complainl oí unjust discrimination, it would then be proper íor the commission to decide upon the question, but un til such questions come beíore it in the proper manner it would be íolly to esprtss an opinión cr give advice. Express com pañíes having raised a question as to whether they were subject to the operation oí the law, the commission replies that it will hold ín the affirmative, but a hearing will be granted any company wishing to contest the point. The commission goes on te say that Congress has not taken the management oí the railroads out of the hands of the companies themselvos, but has simply established certain general principies under which inter-State commerce must be contiucted. Many of the numerous petitions received are made upon suggestions oí the carriers themselves, and it appears Irom these that common comments on the law, by the carriers and those who have heretof ore enjoyed special favors at their hands, describe the system oí penalties whieh the law provides as extreme, and the risks imposed upon unintentional and unwitting violators as enormous. "Such oomment," says the oommission, "seems to us neither fair nor just." It continúes: "Good faith, exhibited in an nonest efiort to carry out the requirements of the laws, will involve reasonable and fair-minded officials in do danger ol damages or fines. The elasticity of the statute in their favor is noticeable. Throughout the act, as it now stands in coníessedly experimental form, there is exhibited an obvious and a generous purpose to allow to the corporations ampie scope in the oondact of their business as common carriers for tbe people, and fair conBideration of every reasonable claim, while insisting upon just, impartial, open and consistent rates of charge, to which ever; citlzen sball be subjected alike wbose situation is the same. The language and the tenor of the act wholly iail to justifjr railroad managers, il any such there be, who refuse to accept responsibilities, decline to offer rates, neglect to announce conditions of trame, embarrass tbe customary interchange of business and impose stagnation upon trade, while the; ' stick in the bark ' of the ph rases and expressions of tbe law, inventing donbte and imagining dangera. "It is still more unjustiflable for railroad companles to make use of the general clauses of the law, ignoring its modif ying and enlargiLg words and formulas in order to impose additlonal burdeus upon loealities, trades, professions, manufactorers, consumers, classes of travelers or employés, straining every construction in favor of the corporate treasury, snd quoting the new law as their authority for 11 manner of petty exuctions. "The powers of the commission are entirely adequate to cope with such conduet, the existence of which is not affirmed, although it has been somewhat publioly suggested. The same statute which enacts that charges for like service shaU be uniform to all also provides that charges in every case and for every kind nd class ot service shall be reasonable and just." In reply to Bishop Knickerbocker, of IndianapoUs, who inquired as to the right of a railroad to transport missionaries at special reduced rates, the commission writes that it has no power in the premises. "There is no doubt," Judge Cooley adds, "of the right of the railroads to grant special privileges to religious teachers, and in deciding in good faith what they will do they can scarcely be said to incur risk of penalties. Penalties are for willful violations of the law, and not for errors of judgment"