Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-05

serves vas passed at the instance of Mr..
Hepburn. He said that he understood that
the total YVES about s7o0,000. but that as the
law authorized the bureau to eXpend the
money received by it without requiring the
Formally of an appropriation the Senate
Should have exact Information on the ques-
zion.
The IA te bill was then taken UP and Mr.
NeNIands continued his argument sup
port OF his proposition for the national In
corporation of railroad compan es. He en-
gagged in controversy with Mr.. Hepburn
and Mr.. Fulton to his suggestion that
the government Should prohibit incomes ex-
ceediDg q per cent on railroad stocks, and
said that he would not object If the result
should be a guarantee of certain given
income
In reply 10 questions put by Mr.. Spooner
Mr. Newiands SaiG effort was contefd-
plated by his bill which would effect the
jurisdiction OF the states over commerce
confined entirely TO one state. He Also
said that If the United States should in
corporate the Interstate roads they could
be exempted from state taxation.
When MIR NeWlands finished Mr. Stone
took the floor In support of the rate bin.
Discussing the Long Amendment.
Mr. Stone dealt especially with the
amendment suggested by Mr. Long con-
tending that ii gives the railroads all they
can possibly ask for, but before taking up
general question at some length, saying
among other things that as the bill stands
IL provides sufficiently for a judicial re-
view of the orders by the proposed COM
mission, He stated his substantial indorse-
ment OF Mir Bailey's position in favor of
the restriction of the power of the inferior
courts IA the matter of the suspension of
the orders OF the commission.
Regarding the Long amendment he said
that while 1t was proposed by the senator
from Kansas, the President of the United
States ia It's author Giving his version OF
the origin Of the provision, he said:
ION Sunday morning last the papers con-
tanned an account of a meeting at the
White House of numerous republican sena-
tors Tor consultation with the President
and the Attorney General. 1t is reported
that for some hours they sat in solemn con-
clare on the rate bill. and In due course
the amendment proposed by the senator
from Kansas was Matched"
lie then quoted the proposed amendment
and proceeded:
That ought to be satisfactory to the
railroads. There is~no need fer making any
additions 10 II. There may be, and in a
sense there Is. n technical distinction be-
tween rights specifically secured by the
Constitution and rights that are founded
purely in statutory provisions or in the gen.
'eral principles of the common law.
Distinction, but No Difference.
But as applied to eases ordinarily aris-
ing out OF the orders OF the interstate COM
merce commission a distinction of that
kind would be distinction without a prac-
ttcal difference; and II this amendment
should be adopted there would be no occa-
sion to apply 1t. The only action carrier
would ordinarily institute against the COM
mission would be 10 have the court deter
mine whether a rate prescribed by that
body was a Just. reasonable and fairly re-
munerative rate. or whether a reputation
ff...l IL.
regulation. THIS amendment provides that
the court may determine whether the order
complained of was beyond the authority of
the commission or in violation of the rights
secured by the Constitution
No express prohibition is put upon the
Jurisdiction of the court against extend
ing It's inquiry to any limit. II the amend
ment is 10 be considered as intended 10
restrict the jurisdiction OF the court 1t
can have that effect only by Inference ON
the theory that If particular jurisdic-
tton be expressly conferred by statute the
statute shall be construed as to ex-
clude any further or additional Jurisdic-
ton. But so far this amendment Is
with re5nements of that character 1t Is
broad enough to meet every requirement
OF the railroads. II carrier complainant
show to the court that a rate pre-
scribed by the commission was eonfisca-
tory or not even compensatory: IL II could
show that the returns under the rate pre-
'scribed did not afford remuneratiye
compensation for the capital invested and
for the time and labor expended, would
1t not be deprivfng the carrier of it's prop
erty. under the pretense OF public au-
thority. without due process of lawr The
Forms of law cannot be used to wantoniy
destroy the property of citizens or fruits
or their labor III the Constitution is not
competent to protect the citizen against a
wrong so monstrous 1t should be amend
ed without delay"