The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-03-29

Fhe power of taking the movement Of persons and property under any form of concentration or under any circumstances whatever, and that a short and supple law would reach the root of the trouble. He reviewed his publicly expressed ideas. which tentative suggestions he said were elaborated in the bill he introduced seV- eral weeks ago.
 Mr Knox said the theory on which his bill was drawn is that general words in statute which are sufficiently eompre- henslve to cover the evil aimed at make i better and more effective legislation than specific prohibition of the evil in the forms in which 1t has appeared.
 In elaborating on the fifth section of his bill, which provides for d review by the courts of orders of the commission. Mr Knox said that the omission of such feature from the house bill constitutes the main difference between the two measures. As preface to large num- Der of extracts from court decisions up- holding his position, MT. Knox said
 Tt is obvious that a law conferrng the tremendous power which it is pro- posed by all the bills under consideration to confer upon the commission to sub stitute one rate or practice for another, must be drawn upon one of two theories.
 
 commission shall be final and not review able by the courts or upon the theory that il shall be revieWable by the courts. l have no hesitation in saying upon the authority of the cases which have al ready been submitted to the senate by the distinguished senators who have participated in this debate that a bill drawn upon the theory that the orders of the commission shall be final and un- 1gsafla blp fba xEp1tlH ba stitutional"
 Entitled to Day In Court.
 The decisions quoted, said MT. Knox, prove that the railroads are entitled to their day in court and that an act which prevents a judicial review or determina- ton of the question of the reasonable ness of an order of the commission would deprive the carriers of this con stitutional right and would therefore be unconstitutional. His court review sec tion, he said, provides that the question to be submitted to the courts is solely where the order of the commission Vlo- lates the complainants rightA This statement was amplfed follows:
 Tt is the heritage of every English speaking man or association of men to have his rights determined in q court. It Is for the court to decide what those rights are. An attempt to specify what rights shall be determined by the court might be fatal to the constitutionality of the legislation. The specification should not include all these as his rights would be shorn of constitutional privilege. Should il undertake to enumerate rights which he could not establish it would be meaningless and unintelligible legis- lation. If his rights are determined sole ly by the constitution that instrument would be the measure employed in their determination. If he has rights invested upon some other foundation, limitation placed upon him to have nothing but his constitutional rights determined would be a fatal objection"
 MT. Knox advocated provision, Against the suspension of the commis- son's order by nterlocutory decrees without requiring cash deposit or a bond to secure to the parties entitled to re- payment. the difference between the com missions rate and the railroad rate if the commissions rate were sustained"
 Praises Men Who Proposed Bill.
 Warm praise was bestowed by MT. Knox upon the men who prepared the pending bill, but he said he was sincerely con vinced that as it now stands, it utterly fails to accomplish their beneficient pur- poses and, indeed, wholly defeats them.''
 He reiterated that he regarded the bill unconstitutional, and gave the following reasons:
 ''1. It does not provide any method for challenging the unlawfulness of the orders of the commission in a direct proceeding against the commission
 '2. It prohibits parties affected and az grieved by the commissions orders from defending proceedings to enforce them upon the ground of their unlawfulness.
 ''3 It so heavily penalzes the disobe dience of the commissions orders as to make any attempt to secure a judicial hearing In any form of proceeding i'm practicable"
 MT. Knox asserted emphatically that under the pending bill in no way can an order of the commission be brought into court by proceedings against the com mision
 No Effective Remedy Available.
 The conclusion seems inevitable that unless some special method of procedure Is provided for in the act which will af- ford to q carrier the right to have an order of the commission effectively re- viewed and dealt with by the courts, no effective remedy is available.
 Unless the courts are empowered in a proceeding brought with this object in view by the carrier to suspend, set aside or modify an order of the commission, the carrier Is practically without remedy, for it cannot be otherwise relieved from the coercive effect upon it of the danger that, after all and in the last analysis, the lawfulness of the commissions orders eff this question can be raised at alb will have to be determined in an action brought by the United States to recover the penalties imposed by the act--a dan ger which considering the amount that may be recovered it cannot afford to incur"
 "WhateVer the intentions of the framers of this bill may have been" said MT. Knox, they have succeeded in produc- ing measure which permits an admins tratiVe body to make orders affecting property rights, gives no right to the owners of the property to test their law fitness in the courts in d direct proceed ing denies the right to challenge then lawfulness in proceedings to enforce them and penalzes the owner of the property