Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-01-16

of the Dingley rates are to apply to the
next 100000 cigars and 70 per cent Of
the Dingley rates to the next H0.00000O
cigars.
Mr.. Fordney and Mr.. Cassel fPa.) spoke
for the adoption of this amendment, and
Mr.. Payne opposed it, It was his judy
ment that the bill had better not be passed
of such amendment was to prevail. Mr..
Mondell tWyo) spoke for the amendment
Opposition was made by Mr.. Longworth
(Ohdo) on the ground that 1t was offering
prosperity to the Fflipinos with string
to it.
Duty on Rice.
The Philippine tariff bill was amended by
taking rice from its place on the free list
under the terms of the bin and providing
duty of 3 per cent of the Dingley rates
on 1t the same as on sugar and tobacco.
SENATE.
In the absence OF DR.. Edward Everett
Hale the opening prayer in the Senate to-
day was delivered by Rev. Ulysses G. B.
Pierce. pastor of the United Church of this
city.
At the instance of Mr.. Tiliman, a reso-
luton was passed directing the senate COM
mittee on naval affairs to inquire into the
practice Of the Navy Department with re-
for naval vessels. The resolution directs
specific investigation Into the "groundnss
and collisions which occurred on the Tth in
slant to three out of five of the most valu-
able vessels OF the navy. with no pilots on
board, while passing out of New York
harbor with only one pilot for the entire
fleet"
Mr.. Cu!berson presented resolution call
ing upon the Secretary of War for infor-
nation as to whether any officials Of the
Philippine government or officers of the
United States army own lands In the Philip
pine Islands, but under objection it went
over without action.
Mr.. Fulton called I'D and spoke on his uro-
posed amendment to the Dolliver railroad
rate bill, giving courts power to modify
orders OF the interstate commerce commits
sion when such orders are conf1scatory.
He said that the provision is intended to
prevent the enforcement of unjust DEGREES
and argued that as the bill stands in case
such an order should be issued 1t would be
impossible for the commission to change it
until after great delay, with consequent
great expense.
In response to a suggestion by Mr. Clay
he contended that the amendment does not
confer legislative functions upon the
courts He said that only Congress had
power to fix rates. but that 1t could enact
laws delegatlng the authority.
II esaid in response to a question from
Mr. McCumDer. that he did not consider the
determination of what was a reasonable
rate in given case a matter for legisia-
ton, but rather for judicial determination.
Mr.. Foraker also took the view that such
action was necessarily a judicial function
and said that courts fixing such rates
should have authority to enjoin greater
rates than those fixed by them.
Mr. Spooner defined the present status to
be In accordance with decisions of the Su-
preme Court. that the courts had the right
10 determine what rate was reasonable in
DESIGNATED cases. but that the fixing of
rates for the future was necessarily not a
judicial function.
Rights of the Courts Discussed.
Mr. Fulton and Mr.. Bailey engaged in
coiioquy over the question of rates. the for
mer contending for the right of the courts
TO determine what was a reasonable rate
ana the latter inciintng to the opinion that
courts could only determine that certain
cases were unreasonable. Mr. Fulton con-
tended that the determination of the one
point included the other but Mr. Bailey
quoted decisions to show that where courts
had found rates to be confscatory they had
1ailed to attempt to fix rate.
Mr.. Foraker expressed the opinion that
MI Fulton was entirely correct in his posi-
ton.
Mr.. Bailey agreed that the courts had
power to enjofn unreasonable rates whether
TOO high or too low, but urged that no
court could go beyond the case in hand and
by its decisions make regula tons for the
control of others than those Interested In
the given proceedings.
Mr.. Nelson thought there might be one
exception to the rule that the courts shall
not pass upon future rates, and that was
in cases in which a railroad company
threatens an excessive rate. In such cases
ne thought the proposed action might be
enjoined. %
Mr. Bailey said that the Supreme Court
had decided that such action was not
within the scope of the courts.
Mr.. Fulton urged that the courts were
daily engaged in fixing future rates and
quoted authorities in support of the con-
tention. He then returned to his argu-
ment in support of the proposition that
the courts may fix reasonable rates, and
argued that the preponderance of prece-
dents was favorable to that position. "
Mr.. Spooner interrupted Mr.. Fulton to
say that he had stood with the latter in
the opinion that the courts had right to
determine what was a reasonable rate
when they had once held a rate not to be
unreasonable; and proceeding. Mr.. Fulton
said he was not prepared to say that with
out some legislation the courts would go
to the extent of fixing rates, but that he be-
Heved that Congress had ample authority
to confer upon them the right to do IN
civ