The regulation of railway rates may be directed either to the prevention of discriminatory treatment as between places or shippers, or to the prevention of unreasonably high charges for service. As to this latter, the government may limit its intervention to declaring invalid, if excessive, rates fixed by the companies, or it may itself undertake to declare, and compel the acceptance by the railway companies of, rates which are considered reasonable and just.

That with respect to interstate transportation the Federal Government may exercise any or all of these powers of rate regulation would seem to be beyond serious question. The constitutional power of Congress itself, or through, a commission as its agent, to fix the interstate commerce rates that shall be charged (subject to a judicial review as to whether they are so excessive as to be confiscatory and, therefore, in violation of the Fifth Amendment) has not been passed upon by the Supreme Court, but, it being conceded that the Federal Government has as plenary a control over interstate commerce as have the States over interstate commerce, the long line of decisions upholding the rate fixing power of the States with reference to their domestic traffic will, at the least, be very persuasive when the Supreme Court is called upon to determine the rate-making powers of the federal legislature.23

22 Justices McKenna and Holmes filed dissenting opinions.

23 But see, contra, speeches of Senator Foraker delivered in the United States Senate Dec. 11. 1905, and Feb. 28 and Apr. 12. 1000. Senator Foraker's argument that the power of the States to fix rates, being based on the control function of fixing rates according to its own judgment and not according to principles legislatively determined. If this has been done, this provision of the law will be held void.