New-York tribune., 1906-05-10
THE RATE BILL AGREEMENT.

Tho unanfrnitv with which the compromise
between the broad review and narrow review
factions in the Senate has been accepted seems
TO prove that differences of opinion in that BODY
on rate legislation were more apparent thah
real The Tribune has all along maintained
that the issue between the two groups OF Sen
ators had been befogged by overtechnical
treatment, and that the court review question
could he settled when each side knew what
the other actually wanted The understanding
now reached shows that the two factions were
never very far apart, for each asserts that ii is
satisfied with the machinery provided for test
ing in the courts the validity Of rates made by
the Interstate Commerce Commission
The brOad-reviewers contend that they have
carried their point because the federal Circuit
Courts are empowered to hear suits brought
against the commission But If this is all they
desired to accomplish they have secured con-
cessiOn which the supporters Of the Hepburn
bill never intended to withhold The trainers
of that measure and it's supporters in the Sen
ate have always argued that it left the courts
open to any plaintiff who might feel like con-
testing the decisions Of the commission. The
rates prescribed were TO remain in effect un-
less suspended or annulled by the courts, and
no restriction was placed on an appellant seek
ing redress or on the power Of the courts to
entertain his suit. By the terms OF the Allison
agreement suits must be brought under certain
limitations as TO venue and with certain re-
strctions as to the issue Of interlocutory orders.
Moreover, the grounds which a rate may be
challenged are narrowed by the excision of the
term fairly remunerative'-a phrase underlined
by the courts-and the conditions which a rate
must fulfil to be binding are simply that 1t shall
be "iust and reasonable" which have
been applied in many decisions interpreting the
Interstate Commerce law. The Hepburn bill
set up three standards of validity for measur-
ing the commissions judgments. The amend
ed Senate bill prescribes only two, and in this
respect is an Improvement But this change,
as well as the others agreed on, is plainly in
the direction of narrower rather than broader
review.
We cannot see, therefore, in what essential
respect the Senate measure departs from the
underlying principles of the Hepburn bill. The
grounds on which suits can be brought remain
practically unchanged. Under both bills the
courts themselves will have to determine how
far their right to reverse the judgments of the
commission extends. They are as little likely
under one act as under the other to constitute
themselves administrative bodies Of superior
class. with power to do the Interstate Commerce
Commissions work over again whenever the
expediency or good judgment of that work is
called in question. On the other hand. they are
certain to defend the constitutional rights of
appellants and to annul any attempts at rate
regulation which amount to the appropriation
Of property without due process of law. This
was the result aimed at by the House measure,
and is a result with which the advocates of rate
legislation will be entirely satisfied.