Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-28

were sustained" He thought that the
weigat OF an order OF the commission, made
upon authority OF act of Congress.
would prevent courts from granting in
functions suspending the order, unless
abundant proof were submitted to justify
such a course.
Warm praise was bestowed by Mr. Knox
upon the men who prepared the pending
Dill. but he said he was sincerely con-
vinced that as it now stands 1T utterly
fails to accomplish their beneficial pur-
poses, and, indeed. wholly defeats them.
He reiterated that he regards the bill un-
constitutional, and gave the following
reasons;
First. 1t does not provide any method
for challenging the uniawfulness OF the
orders of the commission In a direct pro-
ceeding against the commission
Second. 1t prohibits parties affected
and aggrieyed by the commissions orders
from defending proceedings TO enforce them
upon the ground of their unlawfulness.
Third. It so heavily penalties the dis
obedience of the commissions orders as to
make any attempt to secure a judicial hear
ing in any form of proceeding Impractical"
The Right of Review.
Commenting on statements of Represen-
tative Hepburn and Senators Dolliver and
Clapp that the right of review exists under
the pending measure, Mr.. Knox said that
in several cases the commission Is given
the right to sue, but in no instance Is there
specific authority given for suit against
the commission, and he asked:
How can commission administering a
law OF Congress be sued without the con-
sent of Congress?
Mr.. Knox asserted emphatically that
under the pending bill In no way can an
order of the commission be brought into
court by proceedings against the commits
sion. He discussed at length, from a legal
point of view, his contention that the bill
confers no legal right of review whatever
upon the initiative of the carrier. After
quoting number of court opinions on this
subject, he said:
The conclusion seems inevitable that.
| unless some special method of procedure
is provided for In the act which will afford
| to carrier the right to have an order OF
| the commission effectively reviewed and
| dealt with by the courts, no effective rem
| edy Is available.
| UNLESS the courts are empowered. In
| a proceeding brought with this object In
view by the carrier, to suspend, set aside
| or modify an order of the commission. the
| carrier Is practically without remedy, for
| 1t cannot be otherwise relieved from the
| coerciye effect upon 1t of the danger that,
after all and in the last analysis, the law
| fulness of the commissions order or this
question can be raised at alb Will have
| to be determined in an action brought by
the United States to recover the penalties
imposed by the act-a danger Which, con-
| sidering the amount that may be recov-
| cred, it cannot afford to incur.
Whatever the intentions of the trainers
Of this bill may have BEEN, said Mr..
Knox, they have succeeded in producing
q measure which permits an admislstra-
| tive body to make orders affecting prop
| erty rights, gives no right to the owners
Of the property to test thelr iawfulness In
| the courts in a direct proceeding, denies
| the right to challenge their lawfulness In
proceedings to enforce them, and penalties
| the owner of the property in the sum OF
| $1,000 day if 1t seeks a supposed remedy
outside of the provisions of the bill by
challenging either it's -constitutfonality by
| the lawfulness of the acts performed I'M
der it's provisions.
"The conclusion to which I am irresist-
| IDLY led for the reasons and upon the au-
thority l have given is that such meas
ure is unconstitutional
Practice of the States.
| Mr. Knox calls attention to the fact that
| most of the states which have enacted
! laws for the regulation of railway rates
| have provided for review by the courts,
| and that similar provisions for judicial
| review to be found In nearly all of the
| bills on the subject of rate regulation
! that have been introduced during the pres
| ent session of Congress
Discussing the differences which thus
far have prevented any agreement be-
| tween the two factions. one demanding and
| the other opposing a specific provision
| for court review, Mr.. Knox said
But for the seriousness Of the situation
! the matter would be most ludicrous
| Both sides agree that the right should
! exist; one holds that it Is in the bill or
exists Independently; the other that 1T is
not In the bill, but should be; and yet the
former, for some mysterious and unac-
countable reason objects to an amendment
which would place the matter beyond
doubt
Demands Of the People.
when we consider that the people are
| asking for prompt, decisive and effective
action: that the present bill distinctly con-
| templates review: that its Constitutional
| ity is seriously threatened by failure to
provide for such review If the other fea-
| lures are to stand; that precedents of state
| legislation are in favor of review; that all
| the bills presented in either House provide
| for or recognize a review; that this bill it
| self. presented in both houses, and as orig
| inally prepared by the interstate commerce
! commission, contained a provision for
| view, and that the President in his mes
| sage speaks of the orders being subject to
| review-when we consider all these facts,
| the action Of those who are willing to i'm
| peril the validity and effectiveness OF this
| law by not explicitly providing for a re-
| view for no valid reason whatever, is to me
| incomprehensible.
In closing Mr.. Knox said this great sub
| ject should be discussed and considered in
| spirit of sincerity and courage; that IT
| would be a reproach to all the lawyers or
| the Senate "if for lack of intellectual in
| tegrity, for want of courage, because of ex-
| pediency-for any reason short of absolute
| conviction-we should urge this bill, or sit
ing SILENT should suplneiy permit IL TO De-
come law. although believing it to be I'M
| constitutional or Illegal and unjust on any
| ground"
! "Mr. President" he added. "the sense or
| this responsibility weighs upon me, and has
| guided me in all that have thought or said
| or done in this matter 1 trust / do not
! need here or anywhere to give assurances
| to the spirit and motives actuating my
| public conduct. But it Is fitting for me to
| say in closing my remarks that my course
| on this important subject of debate before
| the people of the United States reflects the
| deliberate Judgment Of my mind on the
| legal questions and the deep conviction OF
| my conscience as to my patriotic duty"
SEEKING INFORMATION.