The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-07
FEDERAL POWER TOEX RATES
OPINION HANDED ~ BY ATTOR-
NEY-GENERAL MOODY.


RE says Rate Making IL q Purely Leglala.
tive Funetish. and While Congress May
Confer II on the interstate Commission
II Cannot Confer n on the Courts
wAsHINoroE, May 0.-Attoney-General
Moody, in his opinion handed to the Senate
Committee on Interstate Commerce regard
inR the power Of the Government 20 AZ
railroad rates, says that Il was settled IN
the so-oalled Granger cases that there IL q
governmental power 10 regulate the opera
tions Of railroads and, az part Of that Tegu-
latIon, to prescribe the maximum rates
which they may charge. II was also held
in those cases, Mr.. Moody says. that the
power Is vested in and may be exercised
by the legislative branch Of the Government.
An exhaustive review Of legal causes In
the Federal courts, involving the question
at issue, is given by the Attorney General in
his opinion.
Referring to the case OF the IDterstats
Commerce Commission W. Cincinnati New
Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company,
In which the Supreme Court held that the
commission had not the power TO fiX railroad
rates, the AttoTney-General says
obviously the question certified raised
the Interstate Commerce Commission the
power to fiX rates which should control in
the f,tureP Second, II Congress had the
power to do this, did the act under con-
sideration confer upon the commission the
authority to fix rates which should control
in the futureI'
1T was held that Congress did have the
power to confer upon the commission the
authority TO fK future rates
The Attorney General says, however,
that Il does not follow that Congress has the
right TO confer the rate making power upon
a court.
Rate making, he says, is a purely leglsla-
tive function In which the Legislature may
avail itself Of an administrative body for
execution In detail Assuming that the
rate making power is a legislative and not
a judicial function, Mr.. Moody says Il fol-
lows that Congress has not the right to vest
Il In the courts.
The Attorney General sums up his opin-
! ion as follows:
First-There il a governmental power
| 20 fix the maximum future charges Of
| carriers by railroad, vested In the Legis-
latures Of the States with regard to trans
portation exclusively within the States
and vested In Congress with regard 10 all
! other transportation.
Second-Athough legislative power, prop
erly speaking, cannot he delegated, the
! laWmaking body, having enacted into law
| the standard Of charges which shall control,
| may ent rlst to an administrative body not
exercising in the true sense judicial power
the duty to lx rates In conformity with that
standard.
Third-The rate making power Is not
judicial function and cannot he conferred
constitutionaly upon the courts Of the
United States either by way Of original or
appellate jurisdiction
Fourth-1he courts, however, have the
power 70 investigate any rate or rates fixed
| by legislative authority. and 20 determine
whether they are such as would he cOnfls-
catory Of the property Of the carriers, and
IL they are judicially found to be col fisca-
tory in their effect, 70 restrain their enforce
ment
Ffth-Any law which attempts 10 deprive
the courts OF this power IL unconstitutional,
Sixth-Any regulation Of land trans
portation, however exercised, would seem
10 be so indirect in its effect upon the ports
that it could not constitute preference
between the ports Of different States within
the meaning Of Article I, Section 2, Para
graph OF the Constitution.
Seventh-ReaEonable Just and Impair
tial rates determined by legislative authority
are not within the prohibition Of Article
/ Section o, Paragraph Of the Constitu-
ton, even though they result in varying
charge per ton per mile TO and from the
ports Of the different States.