The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-01-17
MORE DEBATE ON
RAILWAY RATES
Discussion Precipitated by Senator
Fulton of Oregon, Who Wants
to Amend Dolliver Bill.
GREAT INTEREST is TAKEN
BAILEY, OF TEXAS, WILL SPEAK
TODAY.

Washington, Jan. 16.-UneXpectedly
the senate today found itself consider
ing the railroad rate question which
was precipitated by Mr.. FultOn's TAX
ing the floor to make a brief speech in
explanation of an amendment offered
by him to the Dolliver bill, giving to
courts Of justice authority to mod
fly orders of the interstate commerce
commission imposing an unreasOn-
able rate. He had not proceeded far
when he was switched from a general
explanation Of the terms of the prOvi-
sion to a defense of the principle
which it seeks to establish and a gen.
eraI debate of the bill. Mr.. Fulton
held the floor throughout, but there
were many Interruptions, and other
senators fully shared the time, among
them being Messrs. Foraker, SpOoner,
Bailey and Clay. The discussion was
listened to very attentively by all the
senators, showing the great interest
that is felt in the subject. The trend
OF the controversy was all toward the
point as to whether congress had the
right to delegate its authority to fix
rates and whether the courts may de-
termine what is a reasonable rate. Mr..
Fulton cOntended that the courts may
legitimateIy exercise this right.
Mr.. Scott made a brief speech in
support of the merchant marine ship
ping bill, and Mr.. Hepburn gave notice
that tomorrow he would ask the SEN
ate to name a day for voting on the
pure food bill
FuIton's Amendment.
Mr.. Fulton called up and spoke on
his proposed amendment to the DOlli-
yer railroad rate bill. giving courts
power to modify orders of the inter
state commerce commission when
such orders are Conf1scatOry. He said
that the provision was intended to pre-
vent the enforcement of unjust de-
Crees, and argued that as the bill
stands now. in such case an order
should be issued, it would be impOs-
sible for the commission to change it
until after great delay with conse-
Quent great expense.
He said in response to a question
from Mr.. McCumber that he did not
consider the determination of what
was a reasonable rate in a given case
a matter for legislation but rather for
judicial determination.
Other Senators Agree.
Mr.. Foraker also took the view that
such action was necessarily a judicial
function. and said that courts fixing
such rates should have authority to
enjoin greater rates than those fixed
by them. Mr. Spooner defined the
present status to be In accordance
with decisions Of the supreme court,
that the courts had the right to
determine what rate was reasonable in
designated cases, but that the fixing
of rates for the future was necessarily
not a judicial function.
Mr.. Bailey agreed that the courts had
power to enjOin unreasona BILE rates
whether too high or too low, but urged
that no court could go beyond the case
in hand and by its decisions make regu-
latiOns for the control Of others than
those interested in the given proceed
ing.
Mr.. Fulton urged that the courts
were daily engaged in fixing future
rates, and quoted authorities in sup
port of the proposition that the courts
may fix reasonable rates. and argued
that the prepOnderanCe of presidents
was favorable to that position.
Congress Has Authority.
Mr.. SpOoneT interrupted Mr.. Fulton
TO say that he had stood with the lat
ter in the opinion that the courts had
a right to determine what was a rea-
sonable rate when they had only held
rate not to be unreasonable; and
proceeding. Mr.. Fulton said he was not
prepared 10 say that without some leg
fSlatiOn the courts would go to the ex-
tent of fixing rates. but that he be-
1eVed that congress has ample author
lily 10 confer upon them the right to do
So III given cases.
He argued that there was no more
WHAT M UnTT Ha--a