The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-28
KNOX DECLARES
RATE BILL FAILS
Senator Asserts Hepburn Measure
Would Not Stand Test
4
of Courts.

! Washington, March 2s.-When the
senate met today Mr.. Lodge offered an
amendment to the railroad rate bill |
making it apply, to pipe lines for the
transportation of oil. Mr.. Daniel pre-.
sented an amendment to the same bill,
making railroads liable for damage to
employees. =, Mr.. .Tillman presented his
daily complaint Of discrimination by
railroad companies.
The railroad rate bill was then taken
up and Mr.. Knox presented his views.
This was Mr.. Knox IS first sustained eff
fort in the senate. -.
At the outset Mr. Knox said he
agreed with the senators who have con-
tended that the power to fix railroad
tolls for transportation is legislative,
and that when the legislature has laid
down rule for the establishment of
rates the application to specific cases
is a matter of administration, which
may be delegated to a commission; and
| that the power to investigate the rea-
sonableness of a proposed rate, and to
fix a rate for future observance, is
on-.judicial power which cannot be
conferred upon courts. ..
Power of Commission. =
Mr.. Knox then set forth by gener-
Gus citations from supreme court deci
sions the powers and duties the inter
! state commerce commission now pos
sesses and declared that the commits
sion has abundant power to seek devia-
tions from the purpose Of the act to
wholly lacks power to enforce it's orders
and DEGREES. The senator referred to
some Of his former utterances and re-
iterated that the efforts Of the govern
ment to check concentration of power
should be supplemented by legislation
which will prevent the abuse of the
power of taxing the movement Of per-
sons and property under any -circum-
stances whatever, and that a short and
simple law would reach the root Of the
trouble. 49,.
The purport of the Knox bill was ex-
/ planned briefly. Mr.. Knox said the
theory on which it was drawn is that
general words in a statement, which are
sufficiently comprehensive to cover the
evil aimed at make better and more
effective legislation. than specific pro-
hibition of sthe evil in the forms in
which it has appeared. - -.
i = Court Review Plan.
In celebrating on the fifth section
of his bill, which provides for re-
, view by the court Of orders of the COM
, mission, Mr.. Knox said that the omis.
sion of such feature from the house
bill constitutes the main difference be-
tween the two measures. AS preface
to a large number of extracts from
court decisions upholding his position,
Mr.. Knox said:
cit is obvious, that law comforting
the tremendous power which it is pro.
posed to confer upon the commission
to substitute one rate or practice for
another, must be drawn upon the the
DRY that the order of the commission
! shall be final or that it shall be review
; able by the courts have no hesita
E ton in saying that a bill drawn upon
a the theory, that the orders of the com
t mission shall be final and unassailable
+ in the courts would be unconstitu
!, tional.' - ..
8 Entitled to Day in Court.
+ Decisions, said Mr.. Knox, prove that
|. the railroads are entitled to their day il
d court, and that an act which prevents {
! judicial review or determination of the
J. question of the reasonableness of an or
: der Of the commission, would deprive
Y the carriers Of this right. Mr.. Kno,
e said that in his bill he had undertaken
u to preserve the constitutionalitys of thu
d measure and to throw around the provi
p. j sion for the review such restrictions al
IS would prevent unnecessary or frivolous
q appeals. His court review section, HI
i said, provides that the question to b,
= submitted to the courts is solely whethe
the order of the commission violates tn
, ! compliments rights.
Mr.. Knox advocated a provision
r "against the suspension Of the commits
sion s orders by interlocutory decree
! without requiring a cash deposit or
| 70 to q MOI anfit1o1 +
repayment, the difference between tn
n commission s rate and the railroad rat
IL if the commission s rate were sus
s tained.' ..-.
l. He thought that the weight of an OF
J. der of the commission, made upon al
f thority Of an act Of congress-, would pre-
IS vent courts from granting injunction
q suspending the order, unless abundan
proof were submitted to Justify such
course.
n =. Criticizes Hepburn Bill.
4 Warm praise was bestowed by M
IS Knox upon the men who prepared tn
IL pending bill. but he said he was sill
a. cerely convinced that as it now stand
u cit utterly fails to accomplish the
Re benefcent purposes and indeed, who'll
le defeats them.' He reiterated that
regards the bill unconstitutional an
"a gave the following reasons: -
sd FsFirst-It does not provide an
IS methods for challenging the unlawful
or ness Of the orders of the commission
e. a direct proceeding against the cor
G. mission.
" second-It prohibits parties a
fected and aggrieved by the commi
sion $ orders from defending procee
ings to enforce them upon the grour
of their unlawfulness.
"Third-It so heavily penalties tt
:. disobedience of the commission s orde
Y as to make any attempt to secure j
- dicial hearing in, any form of procee
ing impracticable.' - 49,.
% l. No Court Review Provided.
Commenting on statements of .Rep1
sentative Hepburn and Senators Dol
/ yer and Clapp that the right of revie
exists under the pending measure, N
| Knox said that in several cases the COZ
:" mission is given the right to sue, but
m, no instance is there specific authori
Inld for suit against the commission, and
at-l asked:
,lrs How can a commission administt
nd ing, a law Of congress be sued witho
the consent of congress?
be - Unless the courts are empowered.