The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-09-15


nently right and just that the government
should move in the matter for the pro-
-tectIon of its citizens, aud to enforce
obedience TO its laws on the part of this
great corporation, acting in its capacity of
"a quasi public servant. These views are
in harmony with and supported by many
adjudicated cases maintaining the au-
thority and duty of the sovereign to pro-
tect the public interests from unjust in
vasion aOd violation.
1t is contended that even if the United
States might bring such complaint, il
could be done only by proceed. Igs initiated
through the commission. That the RENE
| dy provided by the act is exclusive, and
that access 10 the courts in such cases is
! solely and Gully through aud by way of the
| commission That a formal preliminary
! investigation by the commission is essen
tial to vest jurisdiction IN the court.
There Is 10 question but that this is one
way to reach the court and il was AT first
doubtless deemed desirable As a ready
mode OF bringing the parties together, and
| enabliOg them in a spirit Of mutual con-
cession TO adjust amicfbly and fairly their
| differences before the comm ission.
But in practice it seems tae inherent de-
fects Of the system were very soon felt, in
that the decision of the commission did not
| decide anything, and its orders were not
enforcible except upon the voluntary sub.
mission of the offending party.
In Kentucky & l. Bridge Co, VS.. s. e. \.
Railroad Co, 81 Fed, Rep. 561, cited by
counsel for defendant, Judge Jackson in
| commenting on the relative powers of the
commission and the courts. says:
The act to regulate commerce does not
| undertake either to create an inferior
court or TO invest the commission appoint
| ed Hereunder with judicial powers or
functions. 1t is invested with only adj
| ministratiye powers of supervision and
| investigation, which fall far short Of max
| ing it court, or its action judicial in the
| proper sense Of the term. It's action or
| conclusion upon matters brought before it
| for investigation IS neither final nor con-
| elusive; nor is it invested with any
authority TO enforce its decision or award.
/ 1t hears, Investigates and reports upon
| complaints made before it, but subsequent
| Judicial proceedings are contemplated and
| provided for as the remedy for the enforce
| ment of the order or report of the COM
! mission in all cases where a party against
| whom its decision is rendered does not
| yield voluntary obedience thereto"
This act does not make the circuit court
| the mere eXecutiOuer OF the commission
| er's order or recommendation, SO as to i'm
| pose upon the court non-iudicial power
The suit in this court Is, under the pro-
visions of the act, au original and indie
pendent proceeding, In which the commits
sioners' report Is made prima facie evil
dence of the matters or facts therein sta
ted. The court is not confined to a mere
examination of the case as heard and re-
ported by the commission, but hears and
determines the case de novo. upon proper
pleadings aud proofs; the latter including
not only the prima facie facts reported
by the commission, but all such other aud
further testimony as either party may in
troduce, bearing upon the matter In con-
troversy"
This was in January 1885, Judge Jackson
shows that SO plainly the defects of the
commission as affording no final Judicial
settlements of controversies. As he we'll
says upon the circuit court of the United
States, THE jurisdiction is conferred of en-
forcing the rights, duties and obligations"
recognized by the interstate commerce
act.
When cases begun before the commits
sion reach the courts the only legal effect
given by the act to the findings of the COM
mission is TO make them simply prima
facie proof of the facts found, subject to
be relitigated on a tIial de novo as to the
whole matter.
This decision and others in line with it,
and the report of the commission In 1889 |
heretofore cited, in which complaint is |
made of the want of any ready means of |
enforcement of the decisions or orders of !
the commission, may well have led con- |
gress to the enactment, on February 10, !
1891, of the amendment to section II of the |
act. cited supra, and may throw some
light, too, upon the proper construction of |
the amendment.
When this amendment is considered, par
tlcularly in its historical connection with 1
the first clause of the act. it seems impossi-
BILE to escape the conclusion that il was in
tended to confer upon the commission "A
power aud a direction to avoid this happily |
styled 'circumlocution of procedure in
the hitherto established ways and to afford
speedy and effective means of bringing
I =
competent jurisdiction 10 answer both civ
lily and criminally for their violation of
the law. The language of the amendment
Is, and the commission Is hereby author
ized and required 10 execute and enforce
the provisions or this act; and upon the re-
quest of the commission, IL shall be the
duty of any district attorney to whom the
commission may apply TO institute in the
proper court aud 10 prosecute under the
direction of the attorney general of the
United States, all necessary proceedings
of this act, aud for the punishment of all
violations thereof
This was after four years trial Of the
practical operations of the commission and
painful experience OF it's inherent defects,
so far as concerned the ultimate and final
relief sought by the honest citizen contend
ing against the abuses practiced by these
great corporations
The preliminary investigation" was
|
any binding adjudication, but often, even
where Administered by the ablest jnrist
aud best men in our country, was the
means of piliug up difficulties in his way,
and creating new obstacles IN the attain
ment of his rights
Now this amendment In just so many
words places the power in their hands and
imposes upon their conscience the duty of
seeing that this interstate commerce act
shall be enforced, and that there will be no
delay III this matter, IL Is "dde1 "aud upon |
the request OF the commission IL shall be
the duty Of any district attorney" as cited
supre- IniS req uesJ Of the commission Is
alleged IN the bill 1t will be noted that the
l uIted States attorney when called upon
is not merely 10 prosecute by indictment
for the alleged criminal feature of the
OF the law, which of course is done |
without the formal preliminary trial, but
In The very same connection and by the
sanction OF this same provision ne Is ito
institute IN the proper cOCrt aud prosecute /
under the direction OF the attorney general
Of the United States" all necessary pro-
;eedings for the enforcement OF the FRO
visions OF this act aud for the punishment (
Of all violations thereof.
The language Of this smeuG nent cles rly /
distinguishes thu remedy from that pro-
gided IN section 16. which l. for an appli
ration 10 The coGrl FOR the enforcement. Of
-he orders OF the commission THIS Is an !
application TO b. made by the proper |
uited States officer ''oa the request of !
.he commission" Tor the enforcement OF !
the provisions of this act, and for the pun
shment Of all violations thereof
Punishment" refers 70 the prosecution
Tor misdemeanOrs under section 10
The clause Provisions OF this Act" oc-
,uIs score OF times throughout the act |
md except IN a few instances where e Is /
United by the special matter 10 which il