Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-27
POWER OVER THE COURTS
Proposed Withdrawal Of Jurisdiction
From Rate Cases.
PROHIBITION OF SUSPENSIONS
Wisconsin Senator Holds That It
Would Bar Relief in Case Rates
Were Conhscatory.

AT the beginning Of todays session the
Senate passed a bill making the law rela-
tive to the transportation Of merchandise
without appraisement applicable to the port
of Buffalo. N. Y.
A bill amending ths existing laws relative
to notices Of land entries 30 as to require
that papers in which they are printed shall
be In the county or district in which the
lands are located also was passed.
Mr. spooner Resumes.
Mr. spooner then resumed his speech on
the railroad rate bill. again taking up the
question Of the distinction between the judi
cial power and Jurisdiction. Replying to
Mr. Bailey. he said that owing to the fact
that the powers are totally different It can
not be said that one is greater than the
other.
He also took I'D the Bailey non suspension
amendment. saying that II 1t should become
law the courts would be deprived of the
power of granting relief even IL the rates
fixed should be confscatory.
'Is 1t possible" he asked. that Congress
can substitute its Judgment in such pro-
ceeding for the Judgment of the court?' In
equity. and said that without them there
would be no preventive relief. 1t Is not a
mere fundamentally; 1t is a part OF the
body Of jurisprudence. he continued. II
congress COulQ take OH one arm X COuiQ
take OF both. or even the head, OF Juris-
prudence. and thus leave nothing but a
headless body.
He added: II do not believe that 1t is In
the power of Congress to take away from
the inferior courts any process necessary
to its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may be
withdrawn. but with jurisdiction undis-
turbed We are powerless TO emasculate
those courts and deprive them Of the power
to execute their DEGREES. Congress cannot
rttr {Ytr-tS f1tnttA and NIT hold
He declared Mr.. Bailey's prov:so to be a
mere legislative mandate to the inferior
courts to decide all cases in favor of the
government.
Mr.. Bailey Joins Issue.
Mr. Bailey took issue with Mr. Spooner
this point saying that his amendment
has the effect of merely deprivlng the court
of jurisdiction.
Mr.. Spooner met this point by declaring
that Jurisdiction could not be split UP in
given cases.
Mr.. Bailey contended that Congress could
not only limit Jurisdiction but could deny
all Jurisdiction and, conversely, II 1t could
deny all jurisdiction 1t could deny part of
1t.
The question was not whether Congress
can withdraw jurisdiction. said Mr. Spooner,
but whether, having granted 1t. 1t could
subdivide 1t In given cases. That Congress
could not do.
Mr. Spooner declared that he had no de-
sire to unduly exalt the Judiciary, but he
agreed with Chief Justice fancy that the
Supreme Court Is as important to the
country as the President He would Meth
er add to nor take from that branch OF
government any Of its powers.
Mr.. Spooner then made more particular
reply to the personal features of Mr..
Bailey's speech. He said that he had seen
the staement made In the newspaper that
he had made Interpretations, but that Mr..
Bailey himself had made no such charges.
On the contrary. the Texas senator had
acquitted him of any intention to mislead
the Senate. He then said that the first
principle of conduct he had learned as an
attorney was not to deceive the court. and
in all his thirty-eight years Of practice he
had not departed from that line of con-
duct
Mr.. Bailey's Tribute.
Rising while Mr.. Spooner was talking.
Mr.. Bailey interrupted the Wisconsin sena-
tor as soon as he came to pause, and said
that he considered his antagonist incapable
Of attempting to deceive the court or the
Senate