The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-04-10
Rate Bill Rebate.

g 1-ror tho recent debate In the Senate
an The rate bill emerged several 1ac's ~
fnr-reachng significance. First ana lore
,,,,st was senator Illmnns threat that
e tho courts did not give relief he YOU'D
.refor,n tho courts" This outburst ios'
Senator Tillman far more than IL sa' ''e"'
The people of the United states 90 hot
6,strust the courts or dcspise their laws.
And IL Senator Tllman thinks he can
reform the courts SO as to pfactc''i9
DENY the right of protection TO any GU
..on. whether shipper or railroad, he is
reckoning without his host.
The railroads have done great service,
nn1 worked great wrongs as well, pht
MI their high crimes and lnisdemeanors
combined would not cause thousanuth
nort of the harm that would result from
breach in tho fundamentals OF our
system of laws. The people know 'l''s
and Senator Tillman's thrent is as empty
as it was unbecoming
Granting tho full right of the courts
however, and it is noteworthy that INC
supporters Of the Hepburn bill stoutly
. f.
manuin their adherence to the principle
and practice of court review, yet the
question of the extent OF that revue" Is
apparently as far from settlement as
4 ever
On the one side are the supporters OF
Senators Long and Tillman, VINO hold
that the courts have the inherent constl-
, y, rat
able"ra BY unreasonable" Is meant
rate that is either SO high as TO Do
cxtortonate or so low as to be conts-
cutory.
On the other side are found Senators
Foraker and Knox. who hold that as a
matter of right the railroads ought TO
he given an opportunity to have every
rate reviewed.
great number OF cases were cited
nv Senator Long to show that 1t is I'M
possible under his construction or the
Constitution TO give to any court the
legislative function of determining what
rate shall be. In the course OF his
argument Senator Long cited justice
Cooley. Mr.. Victor Norametz and an I'M
nosing array of other authorities, all OF
whom agreed in supporting his conten-
ton that the fixing of a rate was a legls-l
lotiye act that could not be exercised by
The court though II might be delegated
to a commission. Justice Cooley said
."That which distinguishes judicial from
, legislative act is that the one Is de-
termination of what the existing law Is
in relation to some existing thing ALREADY
done or happened while the other Is q
predctermination of what the Ia" shal1
be for the regulation of all future cases
following under its provision Ink'ns
This as a basis. the supporters OF the
Long nmendST!an! atgue that IT would be
unconstitutional to give the courts the
mower to make new rate in place OF the
rate appealed from whenever III thc.r
Judgment the commission mas nlaae ''''
,,nwise or improper decision IN support
81 this contention. Senator Long cited
the findings Of a number of courts IN
which it was held that the making OF a
rate was n Legislative power, ana as
.uch could not be exercised by court,
that he was willing and anxious 10 nave
the rate regulation bill so drawn that 1t
would both be effective and constitutional.
On the other hand, Senators Foraker and
Knox, in their argument, demanded very
much wider scope for the courts II (he
matter Of review, and desired TO see the
law So framed that on review the court
would be able not only to declare rate
by the commission unreasonable, but
would he able to state what would he
reasonable. and each OF the two contend
Ing factions maintained that their view
Is constitutional and that of their OPP
ponents' not.
In conclusion, Senator Long said that
he was aware of a disposition on the part
~ n number Of senators 10 attempt tc
create n particular kind of review tha'
would throw the whole matter into The
courts, and would transfer thereby Ia
judicial body function that properly
belonged to legislative body. n {
word, the present argument in the Senate
Is raging over the point whether the tlna
determination of the advisabllty of {
rate shall rest with the commission o.
with the courts. Apparently there is M
douh, or objection on either side L
leaving the reasonabaness and justc
OF n railroad for final judicial determine
ton.
.--------------------------------------