The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-04-03
RATE AMENDMENT
Put BEFORE SENATE.
Continued From First Page.
it suggesting the desire Of their side, to.
do anything ito prevent rollcall at a.
proper time.
LONG ON THE AMENDMENT
Senator Sees Pitfall for Rate Regula.
ton Without Presidents Kew.

LONG ON THE AMENDMENT
Senator Sees Pitfall for Rate Regula-
ton Without Presidents Key.
Washington, April 3.-Senator Long1
in the senate today traced the develop
ment Of the doctrine of Judicial review
rates Of commission could not bel
made final beyond the power Of the
court TIC inquire into certain questions
in relation to them. He commended that
the decisions Of the supreme courtd
clearly showed that before a court will
set aside a rate made by legislativej
authority it must clearly appear that
the rate is so unjust or SO unreasonable
as to amount to taking property with
will only interfere with rates made by
legislative authority when they are
lconfscatory and they have defined con-
fiscatory rates to be those which do
not give fair return on the property |
employed in performing the service.
Rates could not be fixed as low by1
congress or by a commission, said Mr..
Long, as to leave the property Of the
carrier in the hands of the owner with
out any remuneration for its use.
It is judicial question, he said, to
fixed by the commission permitted a
fair. return on the property employed in
performing the service, and congress
could not and should not interfere with
this judicial function. He declared that
all the rights of the carrier were amply
protected under the present jurisdiction
Of the court which would not be re-
stricted or enlarged by this bill. ,ts.
Defends Amendment.
Mr.. Long agreed with Mr.. Knox that
bill comforting the duty on the com
mission to set aside challenged rate
and substitute a maximum limit beyond
which the carrier could not go in fixing
it's future rate could be drawn on one of
two theories: that the order Of the COM
mission was final; or that it .contem-
plated q review OF the commissions or
der by the court.
This bill he said was drawn upon the
theory that the court would review the
order, but the question was how far
court could go now in reviewing an or
der of the commission, and how far they
would go if provision for review was
placed in the bill.
Mr.. Long stated that he would not
take the inconsistent position of con-
tending that provision for review is
now in the bill and yet was unwilling
to express such review by an appro-
pirate amendment. For this reason he
had offered the amendment decided
upon at the White House conference.
He agreed with the senator from Penn
sylvania that there should be no ques-
ton Of the right Of the carrier that
had been injured by an order Of the
commission to sue the commission in the
United States circuit court, and stated
T that while he was satisfied with the
house bill in this particular yet IN order
to remove all question as to its constl-
tutionality he offered the ndment
| giving the right to sue the commission
! In the United States court and giving
! jurisdiction to the. court to hear and
I determine the question whether the or
der. of the commission was. beyond It's
/ authority or in violation OF the rights
of the carrier secured by the constltu-
| tion. 81 ttt y All ~,
He believed that the courts would
assume this jurisdiction under the bill
as it was passed by the house and he
! did not favor enlarging their present
jurisdiction: ~,
Opposes Lodge Plan.
i Mr.. Long read< extracts from the
speeches Of Senators Lodge and Foraker
showing that they desired to broaden
. the review of orders of the commission
by special statutory authority. He con-
i tended that such provisions would au-
thorize the court to sit in Judgment on
the. wisdom and policy Of the rates
ma de- by the commission or set them
aside if they for any reason deemed
/ them unwise or unfair. He contended
that such provision for such a review
would, in effect, transfer the rate;mak-
ing powers to the courts.
/ It. was contended by Mr.. Long that
1.-THE effort was being made TO amend this
bill so as to transfer the rate,making
function to the courts by providing for
a review of the orders that would per,
question of determining whether the
rates were wise and fair, and the ques.
| ton of wisdom and policy and substi-
tute the Judgment Of the courts upon
the questions which are for the judg-
Ement of the commission.
Mr.. Long then stated why he opposed
the sch-Townsend bill, believing it was
unconstitutional in that it attempted to
confer the rate-making power upon q
that the Hepburn bill was drawn or
different lines and did not contain the
fatal defects that were clearly apparent
4 in the Esch Townsend bill. He believed
that while the bill, as it passed the
house, recognized the right Of review
and for this reason was not open to OBJ
J, lection that it was unconstitutional be
| CAUSE III pf0ReuGou dJtIoV1eW, yet nj
was willing to place in the bill the kinG
= of review that was now exercised by
I, the courts in the absence Of STATUTORY
provision, and that the amendment tina
he presented was offered to make tn,
bill more clear and definite on thi
point.
! Three Exigencies.
Mr.. Long stated that if there wa
: placed in this bill provision for re
l view similar to the provisions in tn
2 different states as shown in the docu
t ment prepared by Senator Knox, one o
three things would happen:
e First-The United States courts wi
s follow course similar to that take
Il by the supreme court Of Minnesota t
! exercise the rate-making function an
Z confne their condition Of the rate a
1 they do now, to the question as t
! whether it is confscatory, and as t
= whether the commission acted With
! the authority Of the law; or,
Second-The courts will assume til
jurisdiction, and if they do, then W
!. should not assume to confer this powt
: on the commission, when, in fact. it
4 to be exercised by the courts on r.
I view; but we should adopt the plan {
q the senator from Ohio and impose til
s duty on the courts in the first il
: stance; or,
d Third-The supreme court followin
its decisions and taking course sin
e ilarsto that taken by the supreme con-
t Of Kansas in the court of yisitatio
v case, will determine that this attempt
4 confer llDOn The courts fha 1orio1o@;X