Talk:Interstate Commerce Commission

Soop Dogg

I am not sure how this wiki software works so I will ask that someone else do this. Someone vandelised the article (reference to Soop Dogg). Can someone fix this? Thank You

Is this the united states or what?

This article needs more details, more history, etc. A transportation economist would be helpful.

"Is this the united states or what?" - yes. I also agree that the article needs more detail. What really irks me, is that there is no page for the act that created it. I dont really care too much about the commission itself, but the act and the events that precluded its creation, IE the big "Trusts" of the guilded age and public pressure to regulate them, and how that affected congress members. uberblue 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Can links to the important acts that involved the ICC be included in this article -- for example, the Hepburn Act? I believe they were important in giving the ICC its powers. (There may be some mentioned already. I just did not see Hepburn, so I apologize if I am overlooking). Otherwise, a great article! Cheers. Jakswa 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely more information is needed about the background. As Gabriel Kolko has documented in Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916, the railroads had been lobbying for such an act for years before it was finally passed, and then continued to lobby to get changes made in their favor. The result was that the ICC had the authority to set both minimum as well as maximum rates. I agree that acts such as Hepburn ought to be included in the overall project, with perhaps a synopsis on this page and a separate page of their own. Ehusman 02:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be really great to include (in a straightforward way) the Acts following the ICA that changed the scope and powers of the ICC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.15.30.1 (talk) 11:28, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Citation error in Interstate Commerce Commission wikipedia entry

Hello --

The link for one of the cases cited in the Interstate Commerce Commission article, Mitchell v. US, takes the reader to the wrong case. The correct citation is 313 US 80 (1941).

Cheers,

138.238.107.141 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Jay

image

There is a nice image at http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/3239317542/

If anyone can determine if it was published before 1923 (which is my hunch), then we could use it here. Kingturtle (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

sponsor was Shelby Cullom of Illinois

Information is available in national archive of its establishment under the chair Senator Cullom http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-07-interstate-commerce.html Mulp (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Source of Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't corperate lawyer Richard Olney point out that, not the Attorney General of the time period? If someone could factcheck this.... 74.68.98.203 (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading paragraphs removed

I've removed the following paragraphs from the "Creation" section:

Equally significant, the Elkins Act required that rates be published. Eventually, when this piece of (economic) anti-discrimination legislation was constitutionally challenged, the United States Supreme Court ruled it to be constitutional. And significantly (for the future of anti-discrimination legal challenges), the Court founded its ruling upon the existence of the then-new 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and its equal protection clause.

In the Supreme Court's view, the U. S. Congress through legislation could outlaw an act of (economic) discrimination against an individual or corporation if the act of discrimination constituted for the affected person(s) a failure by the discriminator to afford the affected person(s) the equal application (protection) of the rules or laws.

Two main problems here: first, the citation leads the reader to the Munn v. Illinois case, which the Supreme Court decided in 1876 - eleven years before the ICC was created. The paragraph makes it sound like this case happened after the ICC came into being.

Second, the citation makes no sense because the sentence is discussing the Elkins Act, which was passed by Congress in 1903. The Fourteenth Amendment, also referred to, was adopted in 1868. So this information is all jumbled up and incorrect as written. I'm posting it here for future reference in case another editor wants to try straightening things out. Textorus (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)