The Mena weekly star., 1906-05-10

lStluS ulutTtHCtS CouCoIHluS itdtulCS | of the railroad rate bill has been | reached by senate conferences ex- tending over the last week, and Sem l ator Allison will offer an amendment conferring jurisdiction upon the cir cult courts to hear and determine suits brought against the interstate commerce commission. The amend ment will not suggest to the court whether their judicial review shall be an inquiry into the justness or reasonableness of the rates fixed by the commission.
 Senator Long, who made the prin- cipal legal argument for the house
 il and Senators Aldrich and Crane, the leaders in the movement seeking an amendment providing for a broad court review expressed themselves Friday as favoring the amendment and both factions are agreed that the compromise is satisfactory to Presi- dent Roosevelt. Undoubtedly this means that obstacles to the speedy passage of the measure have been removed
 Whether the conservative or the radicals have won a victory is a ques- tion that is not disturbing either fac tlon. The agreement in a measure, is regarded as political It is believed that now practically the republican strength of the senate will be cast for the bill, whereas, under the long con tinued arrangement it was considered that 1t would require minority en. dorsement to pass the bill and the democratic party would be in position to take full credit for it.
 Despite the attitude of republican senators not to discuss the subject ot victory or defeat, friends of the house bill when charged with surrender tc the conservative forces in defense are pointing to Senator Longs speech on the bill In that speech the Kansas senator said:
 'sI do not object to an amendment authorizing suit to be brought against the commission and conferring juris diction on the United States courts sit ting in equity to hear and determine any such suitp
 It was stated that Senator Long spoke for the friends of the bill and they pointed out that the agreement now reached is in exact accord with the suggestion made by him. In the same speech Senator Long quoted Senators Lodge, Foraker, and Knox declaring that an amendment should provide for a review by the courts mot only as to whether the rate Is confiscatory but also as to whether 1t is just and reasonable"
 Friends of the bill, in speeches in the senate have contended throughout that the house bill conferred iuris- diction upon the courts but they op posed strenuously any amendment which suggested to the court that it should review the action of the inter state commerce commission as to the reasonabieness or justness of the rate fixed. Opponents of the bill without amendment asserted that the courts should be given the right of reviewing all question involved. Both factions now say that an amendment conferring jurisdiction upon the courts will be satisfactory. The thin wavering line dividing the two forces has been eliminated
 The agreement does not take into consideration the several pending amendments providing for non-suspen- sion of the orders of the interstate commerce commission.
 Under the agreement reached, in or der to confer jurisdiction there must be two amendments to the bill. The first is to section 15 of the Elkins bill. as 1t will be amended by the house bill The bill provides that the rate fixed by the commission shall re- main in force unless set aside or sus- pended by court of competent juris- | dietion' and the agreement proposes to add these words lin suit brought against the commission" It has the l effect merely to recognize the right of the carrier to bring suit against the f interstate commerce commission. The l other amendment will be section l6. | The bill provides that suits may pc brought in any district where the defendant carrier has its principal operating offices and it is proposed to add these words: And iurisdic- ] ton to hear and determine such suits is hereby conferred on such courts. '" l Circuit courts.)
 There are two correlated questions | that may be agreed on by the repub- lican factions. now that the court re- l view feature is out of the way. If so. they will be made part of the legislation. Both have a bearing on the bringing of the suits. The first is a proposition which would provide that no writ of injunction or inter- locutory order shall be granted with out first giving five days notice to the adverse party. The other would require that any such preliminary order should be considered and con