The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-04
The s. ,oIrak pan.

Another is known as the Foraker
plan, which proceeds upon the theory
that congress cannot fix rates thru the
commission, but relegates the matter to
the courts.
The power Of congress to fix rates
thru a commission is, in my Judgment,
too well settled to warrant any dis
essary on the floor when the matter
comes before the senate. ..
+ The third IS known as the Elklns
plan (Which should not be confused
with the law passed two years ago
against rebates and commonly called
the EElkins law. ''ai The Elkins plan
involves the idea Of the commission fix:
can act on rate; it must apply to the
court and get decision that the exist
ing rate is unreasonable. If the court
finds the rate unreasonable, then the
commission can fix a reasonable rate,
and that rate becomes operative by
force Of law unless. suspended by order
of court. The objection to this plan
in court, when, as will be seen later,
the Dolliver, plan only gives one.
Difference of Opinion.
A division of opinion exists as to
what proposition should be made in the
Dolliver plan for judicial procedure fol-
lowing an order Of the commission. It
is contended, on the one hand, that,
while the jurisdiction of a court may
be enlarged by, bringing subjects with
in it's jurisdiction (as was done in the
Elkins act giving the court jurisdic-
ton to enjoin a violation of provisions
of that law, you cannot abridge nor
enlarge the equity power of a court;
that. under the constitutional principle
~ h. I,
in court, and which 4 prohibits the
taking Of property without due process
Of law, and guarantees compensation
for the taking Of property, day in
court means a day in an untrammeled
court, a court free to exercise it's equity
powers and to grant equitable relief,
and that no provision of slaw can add
carrier feeling aggrieved by an order
of the commission, can 90 into court
LOT equity without any statutory au-
thority, and the court can then exercise
| its equitable power unsanctioned by
lany legislative authorization.
|, On the other hand, it is commended
by some that it is necessary to insert
in the law itself authority for the
court to grant relief. And this guess
of discussion and difference Of opin-
ion, even among those who are seeking
the same object-namely, the prepara-
ton Of a law to carry into effect the
president IS recommendation. / have
no doubt personally that the Deliver
plan will be adopted by committee and
the senate.
No Amendment.
The house leaders today decided not
oconsent to any amendment of their
bill. The weeks debate has disclosed
some weak points in the bill, but the
house will leave them to the senate for
correction. Any. fair amendments the
senate may make, the house will ae-
cept. The bill is chiefly defective in
| it's penalty features, which it is now
believed are too severe, and in its fail
ure to permit the railroads any remedy
in court, or anywhere else, against
harmful orders. Neither of these points
was broughtsout in the house committee
and they. were not disclosed until the
debate had proceeded several days.
The house will accept any fair
amendment the senate may offer on
these points. 1t will not, however, acs
cept anything from the senate which
eliminates the affirmative right of the
commission to name rate, and have it
go at once into effect This is the,
nub Of the proposed egislation. The
rest is largely detail and Of secondary
Importance to the general public.