The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-02-24
President Said to Have
Indicated This to be
His Purpose.
MEMBERS DIVIDED ON
RIGHT OF REVIEW
Democrats Opposed to Such an
Amendment in Terms and the
Republicans Split Up-The
Hepburn Bills Re
ported As Passed
BY House.

Orom our Regular correspondsntD
WASHINGrON, ID. c., February 2s.,-
Rumors are to-day TO tie effect that
the President has indicated his intention
of vctoins a rate regulation bill, if Con-
sress should pass one with a provision
in 1t that the railroad company may
have the right to appeal to the courts
for a review of the order OF the Inter-
state Commerce Commission making %
lower rate than the one given in tina
published tariff. Coupled with this ruinor
is tho other, that the influence Of tia
White House will be exerted to defeat Il
bill of this character in the House should
IL pass the Senate.
1t Is understood now that The bill iri-
troduced Ex-senator Knox yesterday waa
an answer to the protests of the Preal-
dent against measure which should
give in specific terms the right of tha
roads TO appeal to the courts for review
or an order of the commission. Thcra
are stories of an exciting conversation
between the President and his former at
torney-Seneral, and stories are also afloat
of equally strenuous conversations be-
tween the President and Senator Aldricl
standing with Knox in behalf of the right
of court review being plainly expressed in
the bill.
Democrats are almost united in oppo-
sition to an amendment which proposes
to give the right OF review In terms Ths
Republican Senators are badly divided
There is strong probability of the Demo-
Gratis caucussins on the measure, AMI
II they do it is, believed they will over
whelmingly vote to adopt the Hepburn
blll as IT cane from the House.
Senator'S Dolliver and Ciapp are thu
Republicans who are most strongly n
favor Of the original bill. which doSs
not provide the right OF review.
Must Have Right of Appeal.
1t is asserted by some OF tho abItst
lawyers of the Senate. Senator Kno.l
among them, that the bill w;i, be pro-
nounced unconstitutiohal by the Snprcios
Court of the United States, If 1t is IN
acted without specific provision sivin.
the right of appeal. They claim that IN
order to have the right of appeal under.
the Hepburn bill which does not give
the right of court review, the road must
set up the claim that the rate made by
the commission Is confiscatory, and
therefore In violation of that provision
of the constitution which forbids the
taking of property without due process
of law.
Tho ground on which is based the o,,.
position to the incorporation of clause
in the bill, giving in specific terms the
right of review by the courts. is that
II the question of the reasonableness %
a rate Is taken to the courts, the courts
Will have to pass upon that because OF
the fact that the present Interstate cons
merce law makes an unreasonable rats
an unlawful rate. In other words, 1t IN
believed by those who oppose the court
review amendment that to give tho courts
tho specific right to review the order
of the commission would he to give
them the power to retry every order the
commission might enter. The courts would
thus have tho power of reopening and re-
hearing and passing npon even the most
trivial matters decided by the commts-
sion.
Many senator's and members believe
the courts have the power to review
every act8of the commission, whether tha
bill contains a specific provision to this
effect or not. "A general opinion, whether
the prevailing one cannot be said, is that
IL the bill does not give the right Of
review in terms the Supreme Court wilf
pronounce 1t unconstitutional.
Sections Giving the Right.
Certain it is that there is much cone
servative sentiment among both Demos
Gratis and Republicans. which favors Z
specific clause in the bill giving the railt
roads the right of appeal to the courtsS
provided that the rate made by the com.
mission shall not be suspended pending
such appeal. and provided that when the
case shall have been arpcaled to the
courts, tho commission and not the ship
per shall be required 10 defend 1t as the
appellant. This is the provision of the
Knox bill. The following are the sections
of the bill introduced by Senator Knox
yesterday which give the right OF APP
peal TO tho courts:
Section 5. That the orders OF the com,
mission, except orders for tne payment OF
rnoney shall take effect within such rea-
sonahlc time as shall be prescribed by
the commission, and shall continue for
such period of time, not exceeding two
years as shall be prescribed In the order
of the commission, unless sooner set aside
by the commission or suspended or set
aside by order OF u court IN a suit te
test the laWfulncsS of said order; hui
any carrier person, or corporation, party
tn the proceedings, affected by the deci.
sion of the commission as to the rate OF z
practice covered by the complaint or by
It's order prescribing different rate OF
practice and alleging either or both to be
u violation of its or her rights, may In. Z
stitute proceedings against the complains
ant and the Interstate Commerce Con4
mission in the Circuit Court Of the United
States for the district inIwhich in any
portion OF the carrier or carriers that
were parties to the complaint may hs
located sitting as Il court OF equity To
have such questions determined, but In
no other WAY shall the slawtulness of such
order be questioned. And In nll such
proceedings the court shall have power to
mike orders 10 secure the appearance
of parties from any part of the United
States and the existing laws relative ia
evidence and to proceedings under the
acts to regulate commerce shall be ap-
plicabe