New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-29

-"e pGIport Of the Knox bill was explained
briefly. Mr. Knox said the theory on which it
was drawn is that general words i'm statute
which are sufficiently comprehensive TO cover
lhe eNl aimed at make better and more effective
lesisiaton than specific prohibition of the cvl
III the forms in which it has appeared. The re-
cent decision Of The Supreme Court in the
Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad coal cases .constru-
ing the general words of prohibition against dis
elimination in the Ellins act, and the decision
IN the Northern Securities case constituting the
general words of prohibition in the Sherman act.
he said, confirm the wisdom Of this method of
legislation.
In speaking Of the fifth section of his bill,
which provides for a review by the courts OF
orders Of the commission, MI. Knox said that
the omission of such a feature from the House
Dill constitutes the main difference between the
Two measures. As q preface TO a large number
of extracts from court decisions UNFOLDING his
position, Mr.. Knox said:
II is obvious that law c5nferring the tro-
9ssndous power which fl is proposed tv all The
I1--s.,S s eoil1.d-Ialon 10 confer upon the COM
Upon the theory that the order If the commission
ee.--i.s-L nave no hesitation I'm saying, upon the
o-tLorlJy or the cases which have already been
tors who have participated in MS debate r5ar
81 ll.- I',-"a upon the theory that the orders az
the courts would he uucorsttuJionai
The decisions quoted 1r. Knox said. prove
mat the railroads are entitled to their day I'm
court and that an act which prevents judicial
review OF determination of the question of the
reasonableness of an order of the commission
would deprive the carriers Of this constitutional
right and would therefore DE unconstitutional
AIR. Knox said that in his bin he had undertaken
10 preserve the consututio1aIty OF purpose Of
and
Tor review such constitutional restrictions and
terms as would prevent unnecessary or frivolous
appeals TO defeat the end Of the remedial Ieeis-
-aJlon. His court review section he said pro
Flces that the question to be submitted to the
courts is solely whether the order of the COM
mission violates the compliments rights. This
statement was ampideL as follows:
lt is The heritage Of every English speaking man.
mined in court. i is for the court to decide what
1-qe lit-.555ls are an attempt 10 specify what
H. ~ ne e1L.st- tlt9Halty of The LEGISLATION. If
he would be- sfo-r az . an ms rights
S-o,ta II undertake. 20 enurnerate rights which he
- legislation II his rights are deter
would be- tho -,.ss4r~s sr--I,--,7 +j - t-.--
--llI-- ~ ne mas rights vested upon some other
notne but his constitutional rights d5ta sP irs
would he a fatal objection
Mr. Knox advocated a provision against the
suspension of the commissions orders by inter
locutory DEGREES without requiring a cash de-
Tosit or q bond 10 secure TO the parties entitled
to repayment the difference between the COM
missions rate and the railroad rate If the com
missions rate were sustained" He thought
that the weight Of an order Of the commission.
made on authority Of an act of Congress, would
prevent courts from granting injunctions sus-
. pending the order unless abundant proof We're
submitted to Justify such a course
Warm praise was bestowed by lIr. Knox on
the men who prepared the pending bin, but he
. said DE was sincerely convinced that as il now
stands "it utterly fails TO accomplish their
. benedcent purposes. and indeed. wholly defeats
them"
DETECTS IN HEPBURN BILL
He reiterated that he regarded the bill as un-
/ constitutional, and gave the following reasons:
Flrsr-It does not provide any method for
/ challenging the uuaWf ulness of the orders of
the commission In direct proceeding against
second-It prohibits parties affected and ag-
ErIe-ed boy the COMMISSIONS orders from defend
ing proceedings To enforce them upon the ground
Third-Iu SO heavily penalties the dis0bedience
Of The commissions orders as to make any at
tempt 70 secure q judicial hearing ll any form
. Of proceeding IUr-a-t able.
Mr.. Knox asserted emphaticaIy that under the
pending bin i'm ua way can an order Of the COM
mission be brau + into the court by proceed
ing against the commission. He discussed at
length his contention that the bin confers no
right Of review whatever on the initiative of
the carrier. After quoting a number of court
opinions on this subject he said
The conclusion seems to be that unless some special
method Of procedure Is provided ion i'm the act
which VIII afford 10 carrier Che right % have
and dealt with hy the courts, no effective remedy
Unless Tie courts are empowered. IN a proceed
Ing brought win ms glJe-l -l We" ~ i1s car