Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-07

regulate commerce is at almost every step
an investigation of the power of court OF
equity to entertain and the right or clu-
zen to be heard in q suit based upon the al
legged unlawful deprivation of property.
The further objection, however, is made
that there is a broad distinction between
the line which marks the reasonableness or
a rate IN its reduction and the point OF
conf1scation. But 1t should be remembered
that Congress only has the right to reduce
a rate to reasonable point. Down to
that point the rate is the property Of the
shipper Below that point 1t is the prop
erty of the carrier. And, while there might
be vast difference Of opinion as to where
the point of reaSonableness rested as q
legal proposition, the point marks the prop
erty line between the carrier and the pub
lie. More than that, the law by express
terms only allows the commission to go to
that point-to reduce a rate below that
point would be not only to invade the
property rights OF the carrier, but 1t would
be in excess OF the authority of the COM
mission. And the courts have frequently
used the word reasonable as defining the
extent of their inquiry. when the COM
plant mas been made that the rate fixed
was destructive OF property rights.
Proposed Deposit of Excess.
This proposed law goes a step farther
thar most public acts. and provides that
the order shall be in force and effect I'M
less suspended or vacated by court of
competent jurisdiction 1t has been urged
that, pending an examination by the court,
the carrier might continue the old rate
paying the difference into court for the use
of parties who have paid the freight In case
the court should ultimately sustain the
new rate. This Is open to two objections:
First, the impossdbility In a great majority
OF cases of determining upon what partfcu-
lar individuals the burden of the excess
falls; and, secondly. 1t presents a grave
col stituttonal question. While Congress can
make administrative acts final SO far as
the government Is concerned as in postal
matters and exclusion laws and some other
instances, and can make the order OF the
commission nnal 1t cannot take from the
citizen the right to protect his liberty or
property by plea to Q court of competent
Jurisdiction. Thus, Congress can impose
all the conditions upon which the party
might appeal to higher court, but some
where he must have the right to go to
court without the imposition of burdens
or conditions except those usually asso-
ciated with litigation. II the carrier claim
ed that the rate hxed by the commission
was ccndscatory. threatening Its solvency.
perhaps dmperiling Its very operation, It
might present a very grave question
whether at the same time 1t can be re-
CURED to surrender, temporarily even. part
OF that which. according tD It's own plea.
and upon which plea the court would Inn
pose its equitable power. was absolutely es-
sentfal to avoid confiscation, prevent tnsot-
vency, or permit the continuance OF It's
business.
For these reasons It was thought best
to leave the carrier to It's remedy In 9
court Of equity. where the court might. II
In It's opinion Il was practicable, tHnpose
such terms ~ It saw at. as q condition
precedent to granting relief; for. while It
would be very questionable, the condition