The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-02-23

Knox said in his Pittsbuhg speech
that the right of the courts to review
any decision of the commission could
neither be limited nor enlarged by con-
gressional enactment. The president is
depending upon him more than any,
body else for guidance in the present
emergency. He believes that Knox is
patriotic, disinterested, a great lawyer,
and staunch supporter of the admin
! istration
The question of court review as ex-
pressed in statute form is one of fine
| legal technicality. The president is
also leaning upon Taft and Moody,
and he has had frequent interviews
on his own motion with Aldrich, Kean,
Elkins, Clapp and Dollived.
| be seen, to get at the subject from
all points of view.
Danger Of the Situation.
The danger is that he may be wrong
! ly advised, and will accept that advice
| and insist upon it's being made into
law. This feeling exists among those
who would not for the world accuse
Moody, Taft or Knox of duplicity
They may themselves be mistaken, out
it is generally believed that they will
be perfectly frank with the president.
Of course, it is to be regretted some
what that the presidents previous
| training has been of such a character
as to prevent his digging out this
| question for himself. If he were a
great lawyer, with many years of sue
cessful practice behind him, he could
do so, but he has never practiced law,
although admitted to the bar, and he
will not rely upon his own judgment
on such a fine question as that which
is now dividing the senate commit
tee.
In a nutshell, the committee differ
ences grow out of conflicting opinions
as to the definition of the words "rea-
sonable" and "confiscatory" In the
dictionaries, and in every day USE
the public knows all about, but in law
entirely different. That they do mean
something entirely different, is the
claim of Senators Clapp and Dolliver;
That they do not mean something diff
| ferent is the claim of Senators Elkins
Aldrich, Kean, ct al.
What CIapp Maintains.
Senator Clapp, fortified by many SUI
ereme court decisions, maintains, and
Dolliver with him, that the moment
rate becomes unreasonable" that mo-
ment will it become "confiscatory,"
which being true there is no need of
providing for specific court review in
the rate bill. The provisions of the
federal constitution against the taking
Of property without the due process
of law would at once apply to
all rate decisions and prevent any un-
reasonable rate from going into effect.
Senator Clapp also holds that "Confis-
cation in law means this taking of
property without due process of law,
and that the court would promptly en-
poin it. The other side opposes these
contentious.
A Lawyers Battle.
The battle in the senate committee,
it will thus be seen, is lawyers bat
tie over the meaning of certain words
If these words mean certain things,
the specific court review is not neces-
sary in the rate bill If they mean GER
tain other things, such a review is
necessary.
The president will be the arbiter of
the question. He will hear all sides
and then make up his mind, with the
aid of Moody, Knox, Taft and others,
and when his mind is made up, he will
assume responsibility for the decision,
and make that decision a part of the
administration policy.
The conclusion will easily be gath
cred that at present the rate situation
! is not alarming.