New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-01-17
SENATE DEBATES RATES
QUESTION OF POWER UP.
Discussion as to Whether Courts Can
Be Fmporered to-Fir Schedules.

Washington Jan. 16-The Senate to-day IN
expectedly found itself considering the railroad
rate question. The discussion was preclpltateo
by Mr. Fulton, who took the floor TO make
orief speech in explanation Of an amenoneht
offered by him to the Dolliver bill, giving 10
courts of justice authority to modify oroerS VI
the Interstate Commerce Commission imposing
an unreasonable rate.
He had not proceeded far when he was
switched from general explanation Of the
terms of the provision 10 a defence Of the prin-
ciple which it seeks to establish, and general
debate followed. Mr.. Fulton held the floor
throughout. but there were many Interruptions
and other Senators fully shared the time, among
them being Messrs. Foraker, Spooner, Bailey
and CLAY. The discussion was listened to most
attentiveIy by all the Senators. The controversy
was all around the question whether Congress
has the right to delegate its authority to FIX
rates, and whether the courts may determine
what is reasonable rate Mr.. Fulton contended
that the courts might legitmately exercise this
right.
MI Scott made brief speech in support OF
the Merchant Marine Shipping bill, and MIR.
Heyburn gave notice that tomorrow he would
ask the Senate to name a day for voting on the
Pure Food bill.
Mr.. Fulton early in the session called UP his
amendment to the Dolliver bill, giving courts
power to modify orders of the Interstate Com
rnerce Commission when such orders are con-
hscatory He said that the provision was in
tended to prevent the enforcement OF UNJUST
DEGREES. and argued that as the bill stands in
case such order should be issued it would be
Impossible for the committion to change 1t Until
after great delay with consequent great ex-
pense. He contended that the amendment did
net confer legislative functions upon the courts
that only Congress had power to fix rates, but
that it could enact laws delegating the author
fty He said that he did not consider the deter
mination Of what was a reasonable rate sub
iect for legislation, but rather for judicial de-
termination.
Mr. Foraker also took the view that such ac-
ton was a judicial function. and said tna<
courts fixing such rates should have authority
to enjoin greater rates than those fixed by them
Mr. Spooner said the present status was IN &C
cordance with decisions of the Supreme Court
that the courts had the right to determine
what rate was reasonable in designated cases.
but that the fixing of rates for the future was
necessarily not a judicial function.
Mr. Fulton and Mr. Bailey engaged in col
lcquy over the question Of rates. the former
contending for the right Of the courts to de-
terI1line what was q reasonable rate, and the
latter inclining to the opinion that courts could
only determine that certain cases were unrea-
sonable Mr. Bailey agreed that the courts had
power to entoin unreasonable rates, but urged
that no court could go beyond the case in hand
Mr.. Fulton urged that the courts were daily
fixing future rates. he then returned to his
argument in support Of the proposition that the
courts may fix reasonable rates, and argued that
the preponderance of presidents was favorable
to that position. He argued that there was no
more exercise Of legislative power in fixing
reasonable rate than in determining an unrea-
sonable rate.
MI. Spooner asked Mr.. Fulton why. II the
courts We're to pass on the question of rates,
they should not be asked 70 do so in the first
instance. Why, he asked, should commission
intervene? Mr.. Fulton said that he believed the
findings OF the courts could not be made gen
sion would take much work off the hands Of the
courts
Mr.. Clay suggested that a commission could
do the work a much less expense, but Mr.. For
aker said that it was proposed to change the
law, throwing the responsibility upon the gov
eminent.
When Mr.. Fulton finished, Mr.. Daniel called
up the bill providing for the construction of
memorial bridge across the Potomac River at
Kean, he said that the bill appropriated S5O0ONl
for beginning the work, and that he could not
say what the entire expense would be.
Mr.. McCumber asked why the country should
be required to spend much money for
memorial bridge when there was an annual def
lett of from S30.000,00O to S4O,OOO,OOO and when
the utmost economy was necessary in public
buildings. Assuming that the bridge would be
largely for ornament, he suggested that the money
could be used to better advantage. Mr.. Daniel
said that the bill did not contemplate purely
ornamental structure. but that the bridge would
be of great utility. The bill passed
$----