Interstate Commerce Commission Vs Railroads

Burden of Proof: Interstate Commerce Commission versus Railroads
Railways were a unique business organization in 1800’s America, as they spanned across states. When state courts would file suits against them, reasonable claims would often be overturned due to lack of control over interstate commerce. In response to a case known as Wabash et al vs. Illinois, the federal government stepped in, as it possessed the power to regulate interstate commerce on a collective level; and thus, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887. The ICC was designated to prevent railroad companies from creating discriminatory rates, rebating, and colluding. The commission also examined railroad companies and required annual reports.
With scandalous histories ranging from persuading congressmen with railroad shares to favor funding them in

In effect, companies would need to provide evidence to prove their contention, as opposed to the government. This was important because companies had access to their own information files, but the government did not. Even with search warrants, companies likely would be able to skew information provided to government cases. It would make sense for the ICC to be responsible for burden of proof if railroads were not blatantly engaging in corrupt practices, but because it was fairly clear that they were, the burden to prove their own innocence was more sound.
With the burden of proof shifted, the ICC became far more powerful as leveraging court cases became more favorable to the commission. The Hepburn Act also extended the ICC’s jurisdiction to private car companies, which gave it greater scope in carrying out regulations to promote fair business practice. By setting a precedent as a regulatory commission and empowerment in the courts, the ICC would likely serve as a model for future regulation of industry in