The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-22

a stupendous crisis.
Testimony From the Interstate Com
MERGE Commission Itself.
The Washington Post calls attention
to an interesting fact bearing upon the
issue of broad review or limited re-
view" by the courts Of any rate which
may be declared just and reasonable
by the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion. Werefertot the opinion Of the COM
mission itself with regard to it's work.
1t might even be argued that the COM
mission Is not properly Glalified for Its
work if it is not equally qualified to pro-
nounce an opinion Of weight regarding
any feature Of that work. The commits
sion and its members as individuals are
on record upon this point. They are in
full harmony with tho Presidents oft
| repeated declaration that the findings
of the commission should be subject
to judicial review The Post AYERS, we
believe correctly, that the Hepburn bill
is the first Of Its kind to attempt hmita-
ton of the powers OF the court.
In its now forgotten bill presented
| during the early days Of the present ses-
sion the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion made this express provision for the
broadcast sort Of judicial review of its
own administrative acts:
Amy carrier may, within thirty days from the
| service upon II OF any order. other than an order
for the payment of money. begin In the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the district in which
Its principal operating once is situated proceed
lngs to set aside and vacate such order.
Such proceedings shall be begun by Ming on the
equity side OF the court a petition or bill In equity
which shall briefly state the matters embraced in
such order and the particulars in which II is alleged
to be unlawful. and In such proceedings the com
plalnan, and the commission shall be made do
PENDANTS"
Its view of the question Of injunctions
was expressed in this provision:
THE court may also. II Il plainly appears that
the order Il unlawful. and not otherwise. suspend
the operation Of the order during the tendency Of
the proceedings or until the further order Of the
court"
Chairman KNAPP, when before the
Senate committee, said:
THE carrier which is unwilling 10 accept the
adjudication and order OF the commission. and
wishes to review that. should have the hight to re-
view the condemnation OF the rate complained of
as we'll as the rate put in substitution. IL seems
10 me that is within the range OF Justice"
Commissioner PRoUTY, also when be-
fore the committee, said:
q" think the court has an absolute night 70 de-
eide and suspend any rate which any commission
may make, and that you cannot help II. II seems
to me that q rate ought TO stand In allegiance long
enough to permit a railroad company TO take any
steps 1t wanted 70 take"
Commissioner FIFER said: ~
think II you pass a law giving the commission
the hight to condemn 8 rate when I, is challenged
and the right to say what q reasonable rate is and
pu, 1t into operation, and then NJ q time when II
shall 70 out. unless 1t Is reviewed and reversed by
some court-I would not cut that OIL think that
would be sufficient elasticity"
Commissioner CocKRELL said:
Il would authorize the railroad. after the lapse
OF a reasonable time from the decision and order
Of the commission, TO go into the existing courts OF
the United States II they desired TO contest the
ratings found by the commission. The burden
Of proof would then be on them 70 show that ths
rate nxed by the commission was not a reasonable
and Just rate, and In that case tho court would have
full Jurisdiction 70 determine whether the rat
hrst established by the railroads and declared te
be unreasonable by the commission was an un
reasonable or unjust rate"
Testifying before the House commit.
tee Commissioner CLEMENTS said that
x-hY, Tho rIind Nf fhe
commission should not be subject "tc
any judicial review that is possible tc
be had under constitutional and lega
Methods
These are, Of course, no more thar
mere expressions of opinion, entitled
, nerhaps, to as much weight as the opin'
, ions of Messrs. HEPBURN, CLAPP anc
DoLL1vER, who oppose them. They arr
, at least the views of men who have made
n special and practical study Of the in
. ,ricaoies and ramiications OF railwa,
/, rates, and who by actual experience hav'
, learned to appreciate the difficulties pre-
t sented in the work OF giving a squar'
deal to both sides.
Injunction and the scope OF the pow
$ era OF the courts are not entirely ques
q tons of law. It may be lawful for Con
o gress to prohibit injunctions and t.
, limit the acts Of the courts, and yet j
i may be inexpedient to do 30. The opin
n ion Of these presumably expert official
would seem to have some bearing upoI
the question of expediency.
k Talk on the Bench.