Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-10
THE LEADING TOPIC
Proposed Increased Power Of
the Interstate Commission.
AIM OF PENDING BILL
PUBLIC MIsCoNCEPTION REGARD
ING ITS INTENT.
AIM OF PENDING BILL
Meaning of the Decision of the United
States Supreme Court and Effect OF
the Measure in Discussion.

In the committee rooms at the Capitol to-
day the coming contest over the proposi-
ton for increased powers for the interstate
commerce commission was the subject of
gossip and comment. Every one believes
that there will be fight, although no one
can be found who is optimistic enough TO
prophesy that this Congress will grant the
added power to the commission.
One statesman, who is interesting himself
in behalf of the legislation, said today
that there were indications of some public
misconception of the real intent of the pro-
posed bill. He said 1t is not suggested to
give the commission power to fix rates, In
the initiative, but to enable the commission
in case Of dispute between the shippers and
the railroad as to the fairness of rate
fixed by the railroad to adjudicate the ques-
ton after complaint and full hearing of
the parties; proceeding in form substantial
ly as cases are conducted in the courts.
Powers Exercised Ten Years.
This statesman went on to say that from
the date of its organization, In 1881 up 10
May "A, 1897, the interstate commerce com
mission exercised the authority to prescribe
a reasonable rate for the future in cases
coming before it upon complaint On that
date the United States Supreme Court helo,
in what is known as the maximum 1relSht
rate cases. that the interstate commerce
law does not in express terms permit the
commission to prescribe rate 1or Iutuie
observance by the carrier, and that such
power could not be inferred by implication.
Since that time numerous recommends
items have been made by the commission
for amendment of the law, and strenuous
efforts have been made by shippers to oo-
tain such amendatory legislation as would
restore to the commission the power IL
thought it possessed before the decision OF
the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision.
The United States Supreme Court has
held he contended, that prescribing a rate
for the future is legislative or admins
trative function and is not one that can be
exercised by a federal court 1t does not
follow from this that the federal courts,
including the United States Supreme Court,
cannot pass upon the validity OF an act Oh
Congress or the action of the interstate
commerce commission prescribing rate 1or
the future. There are numerous decisions
by the Supreme Court determining the le-
gality of rates prescribed by commissions
and legislatures, and in the decision OF the
United States Supreme Court In 1897, above
referred to, there is not an 1nt1matlon that
IL the commission had the power the court
could not determine whether or not an
order of the commission prescribing a rate
would or would not be a lawful act. 1here
is nothing in any of the decisions OF the
United States Supreme Court. he insisted
which in any way indicates that the pro-
posed legislation of Congress would be un-
constitutional. On the contrary, there are
several decisions of that court which
strongly support the constitutlonality OF the
measure.