New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-08
DIFFER ON RATE BILL.
BAILEY FOR AMENDMENT.
Would Open Court Doors to Al
Il Significant Debate.
IFrou1 me tribune Bur,au1

brief colloquy in the Senate this afternoon be-
tween Mr.. Bailey and Mr.. CIapp IL was per-
haps significant that Senator Bailey did not en-
tirely agree with Senator Clapp. who is sup
posed to represent the radical Republican view
rate legislation. and IT remains TO be seen
how correctly the Democratic leader expressed
the sentiment OF his party colleagues. His speech
is taken as a forecast OF the amendment to tha
rate bill which he Is preparing and to which he
will attempt to rally the support OF tho Demo-
Gratis. Senator Bailey summed up his views IN
this statement:
have never seen the hour that VII con-
sent TO close the doors OF the courts OF this
tue We any person. Per nor nave ave ever seen tas
access Of every man to the courts OF this coun--
try and the protection OF his property rightA
But open the doors as wide 70 the railroads aS
TO the shipper. and want them to stand eQualiE
open and as widely open to one as to the other.
Still. it seems to me that we could provide tor
the rate established by the commission to remain
IN effect until finally suspended by the coura
upon fun investigation into the merits Of the
case, and provide when this suit was instituted
it should have preference over every other case
OF a different character.
Senator Bailey would let the railroads 90 int
court on all rights they possess under ths iAws
and the constitution Hs doubts if it Is COM
petent FOR Congress limit the scope OF fudtciaA
proceedings, once the case IS In court
Where Senator Bailey differed from Senator'S
Clapp the question Of Injunction. Hn
asked the Minnesota Senator IL there was any
doubt that Congress could provide In this bib
that no interlocutory decree or order should sus-
pend rates prescribed by the commission
WELL I would dislike very much TO risA q
provision OF that kind" declared Senator Clapo.
THE POWER oF THE COURTS
speaking for myself said Senator Beilsy.
II have no doubt that Congress can provides
against the issuance OF interlocutory decrea
order suspendins these rates. have never
been able fully subscribe to the doctrine thas
there is any more inherent equity power IN a
Circuit Court Of the United States than there
is inherent legal power. and the Supreme
Court has more than once declared that all
courts below 1t, or what they call Congressional
courts. possess only the Jurisdiction conferrsd
upon them by Congress. Now, IL Congress does
not choose TO confer upon the Circuit Court %
the United States a Jurisdiction which is ordi-
nary and usual and which. except in a great
case like this. would not myself think neces-
sary or proper to modify, IT has power to with
hold it. Mr.. President, II cannot do so. this
whole bill might well be left to sleep upon the
calendar. because 1t is not. IN opinion worth
the time and the trouble involved IN it's Discus
sion and passage"
Senator Bailey eontended that IL any court 'tes
which the carrier may apply-and it may apply
to any Circuit Court OF the United States for
which it has it's main operating offices. or. II
the bill IS silent as 10 the Jurisdiction. then
wherever It can get service-if Il has that wide
latitude IT is certain to find United States
judge who will issue preliminary restraining
order. He did not mean to imply by that state
Iuent that IT will find dishonest judge He
thought judges were much moro honest. even in
corporation matters than IT Is the habit OF some
men to describe them.
But" he continued, "I shall be surprised ic
the railroads and their attorneys cannot make
out a case before final hearing which will
induce some friendly judge to issue an Inter
locutory decree; and unless give this
rate immediate and continuing effect until the
case Is disposed Of upon it's merits we are pre-
pairing a disappointment for the peopls OF
the United States"
Mr.. Clapp was asked by Mr.. TTlman as-to his
construction OF the thirty day provision IN tha
rate bill. and the brief colloquy that ensued
caused a great deal of interest.
SENATOR TuLMANS ATTITUDE
Mr. TiIlnnan asked Mr.. Clapp Il he interpreted
the bill to that any circuit Judge or districs
Judge. on complaint, could suspend the order OF
the commission until the litigation was conf
pleted. and Mr.. Clapp replied:
moi not IN a thousand years.
He added that what he had said was that
where the court suspended this order pendents
lite Il only operates as the expression OF tho
purpose OF the court' but IN view OF the Ian
guage OF the provision. unless the same shall
be suspended also operated as tia purpose and
will Of the Legislature as Co its not being IN
fact yet suspended. and consequently the carrier
obtaining this temporary restraining order
would not be liable for the penalty OF $4,000 a
day In the mean time if the restraining order
was finally vacated"
"If" said Mr.. Tillnan. "the penalty OF $4,000 a
day is suspended by an order OF the court. pend
ing the litigation. where IS your punishment TO
compel ths carrier ever TO obey an orderf Is not
the whole case given away Il the Senator's con-
tention as to the Interpretation OF these words s
right? Are we not face to face with an aoso-
I,te surrender of the relief to the shipperf
.s1 think" Mr. CIapp responded. I'VE are face
10 face with the statement made from which
read and cannot place 1t any better than IL
was placed by the Senator from Pennsylvania
MIR Knox) when he said: of course. do not
mean that m an independent proceeding begun
I'm the court the court could not, in the exercise
of it's discretionary powers. when satisfied that
the rate fxed by the commission was unlawful.
enioin its operation until a final hearing. That
Is a power that inheres in the court that need
not be conferred by statute. and probably can
not he taken away by a statute II 1t Is the de-
sign that the party seeking the restraining order
sbould he subject TO a penalty. and il after the
lanse OF some time the court should refuse 70
make this order permanent and vacate it, am
very fearful that the language OF that provision
would have TO be changed want to add. am
very doubtful whether h would be valid Il
changed. We face 70 face with the propo-
sition. and u Congress fixes a rate below what
the law recognizes as a reasonable rate. then