New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-20

lands yesterday. Mr.. Bailey said that the
criticism Of his views based on an erro-
neous account Of them. The report referred TO
said that a majority Of those present were
against his proposed amendment He declared
that he had been upheld in his contention by
the Supreme Court OF the United States. A
misrepresentation exists among some lawyers
he said 10 tire right Of Congress- to limit the
jurisdiction Of courts below the Supreme Court
on the ground that Congress may regulate t.
proceedings ar law. but could not affect equity
proceedings.
THE POWERS OF THE COURTS.
More than a dozen decisions from the 4th
Dallas 10 the l67th United States. he said,
proved the power Of Congress to control the
jurisdiction Of equity proceedings as well as
law proceedings in the federal courts. These
decisions were reviewed by Mr. Bailey in sup
port Of the position he had taken on the sub
ject Of limiting the injunction powers Of the
so-called Congressional courts. He laid
especial stress on the contention that Congress
may prescribe the Jurisdiction Of the subordi-
nate courts which it creates He declared that
unless those courts We're vested with greater
power than contemplated by the Constitution
the action could not be attacked. Such an at
tack could not prevail in case Of the Limitation
Of such powers within the Constitution. He said
the Supreme Court had rejected the argument
that the lower courts have inherent power.
holding that their powers were .circumscrIbed
by the legislation creating them.
Mr.. Hepburn infected into MI Baiey's argU-
nent a discussion Of the opinion Of Justice Story
in the case of Martin agt futile. and Mr.. Bailey
objected, saying that on rejection Mr. Hepburn
would decide that Justice Story did not mean
what the Idaho Senator now thinks he did.
Mr.. Hepburn asked for time TO answer the
/ a reflection"
TT is just the sort Of reflection that brings a
laugh from the galleries" retorted Mr.. Hepburn.
He spoke Of his years at the bar and Mr..
Bailey said: 1T is not age THAI determines wis
4 dom"
Mr.. Bailey called attention to the act of Con-
. gress prohibiting the courts from Furnishing for
constructive contempt And yet he said, "Sena-
tors deny the right Of Congress TO regulate the
/ issuance Of tnterlocutory DEGREES" He declared
that ell ne was contending for was TO have the
4 rates fixed by the commission stand until finally
adjudicated by the court, because he believed
( II might be assumed that any rate established
+ by that body would be more just than the rates
/ Of the railroad companies, the one disinterested
and the other Interested. I appeal 70 you TO
/ say which is more apt 10 be right IF you give
/ your voice 10 that fixed by the commission. I
/ demand in the interest Of the people that Il
/ stand until a final decree TO the contrary is
/ corded" He advised Senators TO be candid with
the people and he read a letter from an attorney
IN Florida reciting Judge Pardees course in
enjoning that state from instituting a suit to
7 compel the reduction Of passenger rates. q pro-
ceeding, he said, which shows how far these
learned and upright judges may go in the use
. Of their powers. He declared that even If he
stood alone he would submit 10 the Senate the
question as 10 whether the courts may exercise
arbitrary power like that assumed by Judge
Pardee.
FAvORs COURT REVIEW.
Are we to understand that the Senator favors
a final review by the courts?' Mr. Aldrich
asked.
4 do" replied AIr. Bailey. Il have never seen
the day when I would favor the closing Of the
doors Of the courts to any person. corporate or
otherwise. favor a fair and impartial pro-
ceeding What I contend for is that the courts
should not have the power 10 set aside findings
without thorough inquiry
Mr.. Hepburn expressed confidence that the
present ehoft #oula result IN leglsiatlon 10 TX
rates, but said II was necessary 10 pursue meth
DDS that would stand the tests Of the courts.
He did not believe that orders Of the commits
sion could be made final because Of the const-
tutional rights Of all people but he saw no OBJ
lection TO the insertion Of provision for the
review by the courts Of the findings Of the COM
mission. He declared that the Interstate Com
uerce law had resulted in building up seashore
I communities at the expense Of the interior
regions by construction of the long and short
haul clause so as TO discriminate IN favor Of the
coast cities.
The right Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission 10 tx railroad rates was defended by Mr..
McCreary, who argued that the rate fixed should
remain IN effect until reversed by the court Of
review He did not agree with the belief OF
confidence, he said. in the Endorsement Of the
,,eg-rra nv Tho members of the Interstate Com
{ rlerce Commission and by lawyers in the House.
. If railroad rate regulation was Unconstitutional.
he said il should Doe determined soon as pos
. sible. He was not opposed 10 judicial review OF
rates fixed by the commission If the review oId
not hamper the work Of the commission I'm re-
neving abuses by Cohmon carriers He said ne
did not think the bill perfect bur WnelntI
amended not he would vote TOT IT,