The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1905-05-08

tons o relevant to his discussion.
But wherever Congress has conferred
any function clearly not judicial in its
nature land the rate-making power is
such) upon the courts, the courts have
declined 10 accept it, a declared
the law which made the grant of pow
er to them unconstitutional, and the
exercise of the power therefore unlaw
full.
L conclude, therefore, that Congress
IAN not confer. consistently with the
principles of the Constitution, upon a
court of the United States, either by
way of original or appellate jurisdic-
ton. the power to fix and determine
-ailway rates for the future.
Although it is not the province Of
he courts to enter upon the legisla-
i've and administrative duty of fran
ng a tariff of rates for carriages,
nevertheless courts do sustain a high
ly important relation to the subject.
proceed now to inquire what that
relation is and what authority, by
u " II, IL SOuA iioT
over the subject of rate-making. Rates
fixed by the joint action of Congress
and a commission have their source
in legislative authority. Therefore the
exercise of the rate-making power is
subject TO every limitation on legis-
lative authority imposed by the ON
stitution. The inquiry upon which l
am about to enter will show certain
constitutional provisions which limit
the exercise of that power by Cong
ress and any commission created by
Congress. as similar provisions limit
the exercise of h like power by the
States.
The fifth amendment to the Consti-
tuition provides. inter ALA, that no
person shall be 3 = = 3 deprived OF
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; o shall private prop
erty be taken for public use, without
just compensation" This amendment
limits only the authority of the Ma
tional Government; but the fourteen
tn amendment limits the authority of
the State governments by providing
that no State Shall deprive any per
son of life, liberty, of property, with
out due process of law; nor deny to
any person within it's jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws Though
once doubted, cit is now settled that
thedue process of law required by the
fourteenth amendment prohibits the
foIzinr Df nrirofa rrOnorfu For ,rhJio
use without just compensation.
Out of these constitutional provi
sions grows the authority of the court
of the United Stat IS owe the subject
of legislative .rate-making: the fifth
amendment being the source of au-
thority SO far as rate-making is I'M
dertaken by Congress, and the four
ueenth amendment being the source
of authority SO far as rate-making is
undertaken BY the legislatures Of the
states.
The cases l have cited dealt with
the exercise of the rate-making power |
by the states, and it vas condemned
by virtue of the provisions of the
fourteenth anne ndment restrictive up
on state action. The same reasoning.
however. would cad tt the same re- !
suit in considering the application
of the fifth amendment to the Con !
to thf action of Congress-. |
Or any administrative body eXercis-
ing lawful POWERS over the subject
as may be conferred constitutionally
by Congress. am therefore of the
opinion that THE enforcement of any
rates prescribed by such National
authority would be restrained by the
courts if they kwere of such an IN
character as would deny
to the carrier just and reasonable
or due process of law.
The authority of the courts to in
quire as to the character and effect
Of rates fixed legislatively, and to
prohibit their enforcement, il confs-
is clear. Moreover, any law
which should undertake to deprive
court of this authority. in my
would be unconstitutional.