The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-01-06
STEVENS AGAINST
The COOPER BILL
Minnesota Congressman Opposes
Also the Plan for a Com
II MERGE Court.
BY w. w. Jernlane.

y BY w. w. Jern,ane.
Washington, Jan. CAS- he is a
majority member Of the house commit
d tee on interstate and foreign com
Imerce, the opinions Of Congressman
Fred G. Stevens of Minnesota on the
subject Of railroad legislation acquire
added Importance. Being one Of seven
or eight whose votes will determine
the fate of the Cooper Quarles bill, it is
Interesting to learn that Mr.. Stevens
lis opposed to that measure and to the
principles upon which it is drawn.
IT believe that bill is unconstitu-
tional,' says Mr.. Stevens. "There are
several respects in which it is open to
serious criticism, but in the one respect
that an effort is made to limit the opin-
ions of the judiciary it is clearly
against the constitution.
''It is my Judgment, too, that SEN
Iator Elkins', PLAN for an Interstate
commerce court is entirely unconstitu-
strictly legislative function to the judi
Iciary. That has been held by the courts
many times to be unconstitutional. In
the Jackson case there was specific
ruling on that point.
"Congress cannot turn over it's leg
iislative prerogatives to the president
Ior any branch of the executive depart
lment of the government; no more can
congress turn over it's prerogatives to
What is proposed to do is to give a
court the ratemaking power; now that
Matchmaking power is a legislative func-
ton.
Can Legislate Rates.
l.. FCongress can legislate rates to any
iextent short of the constitutional pro
Ehibition which prevents property, being
taken without due process. of law OF
use. Rates could not be regulated to
the point of being confscatory; but
short Of that they can be by congress
But congress must exercise that power
itself, either directly or thru an agency
created for that purpose, and independ
ent of the other branches of the gov
eminent.
HCongress could create commission
and invest it with legislative powers;
congress could create a commission tc
legislate on the one subject of rates
But that commission must be a purely
Legislative body amenable direct y and
only to congress. It must not be a
judicial body. It's judgments should be
final, and would be, except where they
were open to review by the supreme
court Of the United States on the
grounds suggested above.
Legislative Matter.
'EThe theory Of the matter is not OBJ
scure. The regulation of railroad rates
lis a. matter not of administration only
1t is legislative matter. The power tc
make these regulations comes from the
people. Congress- represents the peO
pie. The will of the people is voiced
and exercised thru congress; not thr,
the courts or thru the executive branch
OF, the government. Congress may ere
ate any instrument for carrying out
Of it's will which seems best, but con
,gress may. not turn over it's powers ant
duties in the courts.
"a rate-making commission would b.
subject to the control Of congress, anc
thru congress Of the people. That il
as, it should be. The railroads should
be regulated. by the people in the in
terests of all. the apeople.1 .ss- .Jlj,.> ;
f'For, these reasons I am opposed t,
placing the: Interstate commerce com
mission or any rate-making commission
under the jurisdiction of the secretar,
of. commerce and labor, or any othe
cation of legislative power to the ex
ecutive branch of the government.
81 am disposed to think that thu
working out Of this problem will hav
to be along the lines which I hav
suggested. The purely administrativ
work might be left to the present com
mission, while new commission
might be created with the single func
ton of legislating equitable and jus
rates, their action to be fnal.'
Not an Obstruction1st.
Representative; Stevens does not de
sire, in what he says above, to pose a
an obstructionist, or to convey the i'm
preston that he is not in favor of legis
1ation in harmony with the genera
principles laid down in the president
message. He thinks that Legislation
Is absolutely necessary and that -sa=
gross, either this winter or next, Wi
pass soSe sort of a bill.
He directs his criticism entirely t
the form of the Cooper-Quarles bill an
against the Elkins court scheme, bot
of which he claims to be unconstitutior
al. He is sure that congress will ulti
mately solve the problem to the salts
faction Of the country. Mr.. Stevens
private car bill, introduced Wednesday
shows where he stands on the genera
proposition Of better control of mean
of transportation