Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-19
KNOX TALKS TO ASSOCIATES
Interstate Commerce Committee Not
in Session.
WILL MEET AGAIN THURSDAY
Position Taken by Members Of the
Senate in the Controversy Over Re-
view of Legislation by Courts.

There were. numerous conferences today
| at the Capitol among senators who are
working to secure some agreement on rate
| legislation. Senator Knox visited the
| White House this morning. and when he
| came to the Senate had confidential talks
! with a number of his fellow-senators, all of
| which were interpreted. generally. to be In
the interest of an agreement on railroad
| rates. He had quite long talk with Sem
ator Lodge in the Senate chamber. Senator
Lodge having declared himself in favor OF
| an amendment to the Hepburn bill by which
| ample assurance will be given that the
| findings of the interstate commerce COM
| mission In the fixing of railroad rates may
! be reviewed by the courts. Senator Knox
| Is regarded as being the exponent of the
| idea that the constitutional guarantees are
| ample protection to the railroads in case the
| commission should issue any order that
| would jeopardize railroad property.
| Senator Lodge and Senator Knox largely
| typify the two extremes in the treatment of
railway legislation at this time. Senator
| Lodge made it clear in his recent speech
before the Senate that he did not believe
any possible benefits could be secured by
| rate legislation to offset the Ill effects OF
any legislation that should take from the
railway property of the United States an
absolute guarantee that whatever its diff
culties might be it should have them set
| ttcQ IN the courts ana not III q CoflHllssioii.
Outline of the Controversy.
The whole controversy over rate legisla-
| ton today as it now Stands is depending
| upon some means of bringing together these
opposing views. On the one hand one pOr-
| ton of the republicans In the Senate and
nearly all the democrats declare that the
| Constitution is explicit as to the rights
of any person whose property is to be taken
TO have it only taken bV due process or
| law, and the other hand most of the
| republicans and a small number OF demo-
| Gratis are equally satisfied that an appeal
| from the interstate commerce commission
| to the courts of the country is involved In
| such doubts in the minds of the best law
| yers as to make it necessary to amend the
| Hepburn bill that no question can be
| raised on that score when the new law IS
| put into effect
| Those who contend that a provision OF
| the Hepburn bill as passed by the House
| is sufficient to serve the purpose OF JUS
| tice point to that provision which recltes
| instances in which the decision of the COM
| mission may be set aside by the order or
| decree of a court of competent 1urlsdlc-
ton That language, they declare, IS am
| pie to indicate that the power or review
| exists. But under the Hepburn bill the
| orders of the commission must pc opeseo
| until the court has suspended them
| This provision is opposed as unsatlStac-
| tory by senators who favor more elan-
| crate provision for reference of such cases
| the court should have power In It's Judg-
| ment to suspend a decision of the commas
| sion if such a decision Is resulting IN m
| fury 10 the railroads. They declare that
| bending the decision a railroad might be
| bankrupt and yet there would be no relief
! until the entire court proceeding could be
| concluded. when the relief would come too
| late as the road could probably not re-
cover from shippers the higher rate If they
| should be entitled to receive according to
| the judgment of the court.
Guarantees of the Constitution.
| But there are many senators who con-
| tend with Senator Knox that even If the
| Hepburn bill contained no reference to an
| appeal to the courts, there would be ample
protection to the railroads under the guar
| antee of the Constitution, which provides
| that no ones property shall be taken from
| him without due process of law. These
| senators say that, although such an appeal
| would have TO be made on the grounds
| that the low rate fixed by the commission
| was unreasonable and confiScatory, yet 1t
| would not have to be so low as TO actually
| Conf1Scate the property, because, according
| to many decisions If the charge fixed for
| the service of public utility by a leg1s-
| 1ative authority is so low as to reduce the
| income to a point that will not give a
| reasonable profit on the investment it be-
| comes confscatory.
| 1t is not necessary that the rate should
| be low to actually confiscate the
| property III uueStiOI he rate must NC
| sufficient to give to the railroads a rate OF
profit that would be regarded as reasonable
| under all prevailing conditions
| If that is the case, these senators say,
| the Hepburn bill is as entirely adequate for
| the complete protection of railroad invest
| ments as it is for the protection of shippers
| who are obliged to use these public utilities
| in conducting their business.
But those senators who take the view that
| there must be a special provision detailing
the manner in which decisions of the inter-
state commerce commission may be re-
| viewed by the courts assert that among
| the best lawyers it is questionable whether
| Senator Knox is correct in his view as out
| lined in his PIttsburg and other speeches.
Senator Elkins' Amendment
In order to satisfy this class of senators
| there have been d number of proposed
| amendments~eo the Hepburn bill detailing
| the methods by which an appeal shall lie
| in suit or proceeding before the commits
| sion.
| OF all these amendments, that laid before
| the Senate by Mr.. Elkins, chairman of the
| committee on interstate commerce. Is prob
| ably the most elaborate, and perhaps the
/ most obnoxious to those who are not in
| favor of any amendment of that kind.
| This proposition of Senator Elkins is to
| the effect that If ANY order made by the
| commission shall be In excess of the pow
/ ers conferred on the commission or shall
| be otherwise unlawful any carrier car
| riers affected thereby may institute In the
/ circuit court of the United States for any
| district in which any such carrier has its
| principal Office a suit or proceeding In
equity against the commission to set aside
/ or restrain such order.
! is further provided in this amendment
| by Mr.. Elkins that whichever it shall
| pear to the court that justice requires
| such order of the commission be suspend d
/ In whole or In part until the final determi-
| nation of such suit the court may issue a
| preliminary injunction or restraining order
/ upon such terms as It may deem just sus-
| pending the order of the commission and
restraining its enforcement in whole or in
| mart until the further order OF the court
/ And it is provided that the penalties in
any such case of a violation Of an order
| of the commission shall not accrue while
such injunction or restraining order shall
/ remain in force.