The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-07

P.oyCu.C ~ PcIAOIm some acC III cOHJuHc-
ton with the legislative will, which in
the end eAectuates legislation.
"Under the existing law. if the or
der OF the commission is not obeyed, the
commission must bring a suit to enforce
it's order. The proposed law is designed
to. change this. and give the force Of
law to the commissions order, leaving
the carrier to avoid that effect of the
order is one which should not stand,
instead of as under the existing law,
leaving it open to the commission to
establish it's order.''
AS to Court Review.
Taking up the question of judicial
review of the commission IS rulings, Mr..
Claapp said:
COLLECTION is made to the fact that
the bill does not go into the details of
the Judicial procedure which the car
rler may invoke The bill proceeds
upon the theory that when a rate is
fixed by the commission 1t consummates
the act of congress and that it is no
OF the judicial procedure involved in
claim that the act amounts to the ille-
gal taking of property, than it would
be it congress named the rate in the
bill itself. The act of congress is the
act Of dealing with the question Of the
regulation of matter subject to con-
gresslonal regulation; and in either
case, SC, far as congressional action
goes, is final. But in either case, as un-
der any act of congress, in the enforce
ment OF which party claims unlawful
deprivation of property, the party max
ing this claim can 90 into a court of
equity and assert his rights: The his
tory of the litigation resulting from
the effort of the governments, federal
and state, to regulate commerce, is at
almost every step an investigation Of
the power OF a court Of equity to enter
tain, and the right Of citizen to be
unlawful deprivation of property.
e. AS to "Confscation.''
The: further objection, however, is
made, that there is broad distinction
between the line which marks the rea-
sonableness Of a ~gase; in it's reduction
and the point Of cGqfscation. But it
should be reme,nbe,Ad that congress
only has a right to reduce a, rate to a
reasonable point. Down to that point
the rate, is the. property Of the shipper.
the carrier. And, while there might be
a vast difference Of opinion as to WIN
the point Of reasonableness, rested, as
legal proposition, the point marks the
property line between the carrier and
more s' than that, the law by e express
terms, only allows the commission to 90
to that point-to reduce rate below
that point would be not only to invade
the property rights of the carrier, but
1t would be in excess of the authority
Of the commission. And the courts have
frequently used the word reasonable ,
as defining the extent of their inquiry,
when the complaint has been made that
the rate fixed was destructive Of prop
erty rights.
This Law Goes Farther.
''This law goes a step farther than
most public acts, and provides that the
order shall be in force and effect un-
less suspended or vacated by court
of competent jurisdiction. It has been
urged, that, pending an examination by
the court, the carrier might continue
the court for the use Of the parties who
have paid the freight in case the court
should ultimately sustain the new rate.
"This is open to two objections:
First, the impossibility in great ma
jority of cases of determining upon
what particular individuals the burden
OF the excess falls, and, secondly, it
presents a grave constitutional ques-
tlon. While congress can make admin
istrative acts final so far as the gov
eminent is concerned, as In postal mat
instances, and can make the order of
the commission final, it cannot take
from the citizen, the right to protect
his Liberty or property by a plea to a
court Of competent jurisdiction. -
pio1,fe, Tto,,,k
Thus, congress can impose all the
conditions upon which the party might
appeal to a higher court. but some:
where he must have the right to 20 to
court without the imposition of bur
dens OF conditions except those usually
associated with litigation. If the car
rier claimed that the rate fixed by the
commission D was confscatory, threaten
ing It's solvency, perhaps imperiling it's
very operation, 1t might present very
grave question, whether at the same
time 1t can be required to surrender,
temporarily even, part Of that which,
according to. its own plea, and upon
winch plea the court would impose it's
equitable power, was absolutely essen
tlal to avoid confscation, prevent in
solv,ency, or permit the continuance Of
its business. So n
For these reasons 1t was thought
best to leave the carrier to it's remedy
In court of: equity, where the court
might, II in its opinion it was practi-
cable, impose such terms as it saw fit.
as a condition precedent to granting re-
lief; for, while it would be very dues
tionable whether the law could impose
the condition, the condition being i'm
posed by the court itself, it would not
be open to that objection
Connecting Roads.
Upon the provision Of the bill Civ
ing the commission authority over the
rates of connecting roads the senator
said:
Zone Of the objections to the bill
IS that this is the attempt to make a
contract for two roads where the car
rlers themselves refuse. to contract. The
fact is, that it is not an attempt to
make contract. but it is an attempt
to impose condition where certain OBJ
legations exist, but the parties upon
whom the obligations rest refuse to set
tie the conditions of their performance.
If it were not p<ssible to, authorize the
commission in this respect, carrier,
by refusing to make thru rate, could
defeat the very purpose Of the law,