Source:
Congressional Record, Washington, 59 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 2253.

Mr. Chairman, this is a great question. Any proposition of law that involves an interest so great as the railway interests of the United States ought to be regarded with solicitude by those who are charged with responsibility in that behalf.

One-twelfth of all the wealth in the United States is involved in greater or less degree in this bill. The earnings of the railways are so colossal that $2,100,000,000 mark the amount of this great interest in one year. Our whole wealth production is but ten times more than that. Think how colossal this is. But the aggregate of investments, the aggregate of annual earnings does not mark fairly the importance of this subject to the American people. Think how dependent we are for our prosperity, for the comforts of life even, upon the common carriers of the land. Think of the infinitude of the transactions between the carriers and those they serve — millions and millions of transactions.

And yet, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCall] announced the astonishing doctrine that with all these varied and varying interests, with all of these interests, the people cannot separate themselves from, they cannot separate their connection with, the railways — yet in all of these multiplied transactions there shall be no practical arbiter, no one to settle disputes except one of the parties in interest. …

The courts [have] proved inadequate because of these reasons: The subject of the controversy in all of the cases that I can conceive is an involved one to the plaintiff; the knowledge and information that would enable the plaintiff to maintain his action for an overcharge are not in his possession. He could not give that expert testimony as to all the elements that would enter into the composition of a just and reasonable charge or an overcharge while a knowledge of all these facts are in the hands of his adversary, and therefore he could not recover.

That is one of the difficulties, not with the courts but because of the peculiarities of the subject of controversy. The courts have not been adequate and therefore some other means had to be substituted. With what abhorrence would we look upon a proposition, if gentlemen should make it, with reference to controversies other than of this class that were certain to rise and be numerous in the community, providing that one of the parties alone should determine the rightfulness of the controversy; and yet that is what is involved in all of these multitudes of possible disputes between carrier and shipper.

It is the carrier that fixes the rate. He imposes upon the other party the necessity of accepting his rate. There is no escape from it. He may pay the charge and then the common law, says the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Littlefield], gives him a remedy and allows him to recover for the overcharge. Ah, how barren is that remedy, and while it is a known fact that the cases where such suits might be instituted are counted by millions, none is ever brought because of the expense, because of the delay, because of the inability to secure the proof whereby a judgment is within the limits of possibility. Therefore it is futile to talk about the courts as they are constituted furnishing that remedy that ought to be somewhere existent.

Now, what do we do by this bill? The gentlemen who oppose it have discussed it as though it conferred upon the Railway Commission the power to establish schedules and rates. They have, I think, sometimes purposely set up this bogie for the purpose of combating it. No one has proposed that. The jurisdiction of the commission is limited, as is its power limited, by this law. They cannot at pleasure establish a rate. Before their jurisdiction attaches it must be ascertained that a wrong has been done, an overcharge has been made, a wrong in an extravagant, unreasonable rate, because the law today and the common law provide that the carriers' charge shall be just and reasonable. That is the limit to which he is permitted to go in fixing his tariff of schedules.

Now, under the operation of this bill, if it should become a law, it is necessary for someone to allege a violation of the statute — that a crime, in other words, has been done — because the overcharge is a crime, as well as being prohibited, and remedies furnished civilly by the courts. He has committed a crime. What then? Investigation follows, and if it is ascertained that the carrier is in violation of the law, then the jurisdiction of the commission attaches, and it is permitted to do what? Fix a rate? Oh, no; oh, no. It is permitted to establish a just, reasonable, and fairly remunerative rate that shall be the maximum rate that the carrier shall charge. That is all.

Can you think of any legislative effort in the direction of control more conservative that this? First, the carrier must be in the wrong — the carrier must be a criminal. His criminality must be ascertained. When it is ascertained by a dispassionate commission, then a rate within limitations, fair and certain and well-defined, may be established as the maximum that the carrier may charge, leaving the feature of flexibility still remaining in the rate, and permitting the carrier to charge that lower sum that the exigencies of business or the activities of competition may make it prudent and wise for him to adopt.
ANNOTATIONS:
The ethos of this primary source is that it is very credible, the source talks about the Hepburn Act of 1906, this source comes straight from William Hepburn who had a great influence on this act. 

The logos of the source is when Hepburn is arguing for better rates, he says this because, “that a crime, in other words, has been done — because the overcharge is a crime, as well as being prohibited, and remedies furnished civilly by the courts.” Overcharging rates are criminal and should not be done. He is very persuasive and emphasizes throughout the text that rates should be fairer. The Hepburn act does just that and makes sure rates do not increase and stay fair. 

The pathos that Hepburn uses is the persuasiveness in the last paragraph where he states that this act will set a maximum rate that may be charged and if the railway company would like they could charge that max rate or charge less. This act gives them options for what they can charge while still being fair. 

Throughout the text, Hepburn emphasizes the word “criminal” when referring to the overcharge of rates. These rates have become so ridiculous and expensive that it is robbing the people and businesses who use the railways.