Mr. Richardson. Do you think that the enforcement of the present
statute is in all respects sufficient to protect the interests of the public
and the interests of the railroads'^

Mr. Hines. There has been absolutely nothing to show it is insuflS-
cient. If there are any amendments needed to increase that efficiency
along the lines of the present law, that is all right; but you have
simply got that distinct line of cleavage before you. Here is one
method of corrective regulation by which you can substantially pre-
vent any oppressive or unjust action on the part of the railroad and at



I'EOPOSED AMENDMENT OF INTEKSTATE-COMMEKCE LAW. 199

the same time leave a reasonable degree of initiative and the manage-
ment of railroad aflfairs for the future with the railroads. With the
other you have a system of affirmative regulation for all time to come
of every rate that the Commission takes hold of.
Now, if there is anj'thing that can be done to increase the corrective
power under the present theory, of course there can be no dispute as to
the propriety of that, because that theory of regulation has been fully
adopted by Congress. But the question before the committee now is
whether that theor^^ will be thrown aside and the theory of affirmative
management of railroad properties adopted in its stead.
Mr. Richardson. The real question now, as I understand, is to give
the Commission effectiveness — that is, to give it power to enforce
legislation that already exists.
• Mr. HiNES. That can be done. That is already provided for in the
present law.
