The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-01-17
POWERS OF COURTS
SENATOR'S INADVERTENTLY DIs-
 CUSs RAILROAD RATES.
Question as to Whether Judicial Body Has Right to Determine What Charge is Reasonable,
 Taken up.

the floor to make a brief speech in ex- planation of an amendment offered by him to the Deliver bill. giving to courts of justice authority to modify orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission imposing an unreasonable rate.
 He had not proceeded far when he was switched from a general discuss sion of the terms of the provisions to a defense of the principle which he seeks to establish and a general debate followed. Mir. Fulon held the floor throughout but there were many in- terruptions and other Senators shared the time, among them being Messrs. Foraker, Spooner. Bailey and Clay.
 The discussion was listened to most attentively by all tfie Senators showing the great interest that is felt in the subject. The trend of he controversy was all toward the point as to wheth- CT Congress has the right to delegate authority to fix rates and whether the courts may determine what is a req sonable rate. Mir. Fulton contended that the courts may legitimately exercise this right. Mir. Scott made brief speech in support of the Merchant Marine bill and MT. Hepburn gave mo- tice that tomorrow he would ask the Senate to name a day for voting on the Pure Food bill
 At the instance of Mir. Tillman. q resolution was passed directing the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs to inquire into the practice of the navy department with respect to the employ ment of competent pilots for naval vessels. The resolution directs spe- cific investigation into the ''groundings and collisions which occurred on the 7th inst, to three out of five of the most valuable vessels of the navy with no pilots on board while passing out of New York harbor with only one pilot for the entire fleet"
 Mir. Culberson presented a resolution calling upon tho Secretary of War for information as to whether any officials of the United States army own lands in the Philippines, but under objection IL went over without action.
 MT. Fulton called up and spoke on his proposed admendment to the Dolli- var railroad rate bill, giving courts power to modify orders of the inter- state commerce commission when such orders are confiscatory. He said that the provision is intended to prevent the enforcement of unjust decrees and argued that as the bill stands in case such an order should be issued 1t would be impossible for the commission to change it until great delay with the consequent of great expense.
 In response to a suggestion by MT. Clay he contended that the amend ment does not confer legislative func- tions upon the courts. He said that only congress had power to fix rates but that it could enact laws delegating the authority.
 He said in response to a question from Mir. McCumber that he did not consider the determination of what was a reasonable rate in a given case. a matter for legislation determination but rather for judicial determination. MT. Foraker also took the view that such action was necessarily Judicial function and said that courts fixing such rates should have authority to en- join greater rates than those fixed by them.
 MT. Spooner defined the present sta tutes to be in accordance with the su- preme court that the courts had the right to determine what rates was reasonable in designated cases, but that the fixing of rates for the future was necessarily not a judicial function.
 MT. Fulton and MT. Bailey engaged in a colloquy over the question of rates, the former contending for the right of the courts to determine what was reasonable rate and the latter inclining to the opinion that courts could only determine that certain cases were un- reasonable. MT. Fulton contended that the determination of one point included the other but MT. Bailey quoted de- found rates to be confiscatory they had failed to attempt to fix a rate
 Mir. Bailey agreed that the courts had power to en1oin unreasonable rates, whether too high or too low, but urged that no court could go beyond the case in hand and by it's decisions make regulations for the control of others than those interested in the given pro- ceeding.
 MT. Nelson thought there might be one exception to the rule that the courts shall not pass upon future rates and that was in cases in which rail- road company threatens an excessive rate. On such cases he thought the proposed action might be enjoined.
 MT. Bailey said that the Supreme Court had decided that such action was not within the scope of the courts. MT. Fulton urged that the courts were daily engaged in fixing future rates. He quoted authorities in support of the proposition that the courts may fix reasonable rates and argued that the preponderance of precedents was favor able to that position.
 Courts Can Determine.
 Mir. Spooner interrupted MT. Fulton to say that he had stood with the lat ter In the opinion that the courts had right to determine what was reason able rate when they had once held a rate not to be unreasonable, and, pro- ceeding, MT. Fulton said he was net prepared to say that without some leg islation the courts could go to the eX- tent of fixing rates, but that he be- licved that Congress had ample au- thorlty to confer upon them the rlSht to do so in given cases.
 MT. Spooner asked Mir Fulton why. If the courts are to pass on the question of rates, they should not be asked 70 do so In the first instance. Why. he asked, should a commission intervene?
 MT Fulton said that he believed the findings of the courts could not De made generally applicable, He thought that the commission would take such work off the hands of the courts.
 Mir. Clay suggested that a commis- sion could do the work at much less expense but Mir. Foraker said that It was proposed to change the law, throw ing the responsibility upon the Gov ment. When Mir. Fulton concluded, MT. Daniel called up the bill providing Tor the construction of q memorial bridge across the Potomac River at Washing ton. He said that the bill appropriates $500, 900 for beginning the work and that he could not say what the entire expense would be.
 Mir. McCumber asked why the coun- try should be required to spend so much money for memorial bridge 1 when there was an annual deficit of from S3O. 900 900 to $4O.000,000. and | when the utmost economy was neces- |