The Washington times., 1906-10-29
INTERSTATE LAW
PUZZLING FEATURE
Status of Unfinished Cases
Begun Under Old Law
Questioned.
COMMISSION N0MPLUSSED
Can Investigate Alleged Violations,
But Cannot Direct Prose-
CutiOnS.

The Interstate Commerce Commission
Is wrestling with a question OF law ana
practice which, affecting cases pending
before It, may prove OF the largest i'm
pcrtance. II relates 10 the status, un-
der the new law, of complaints, in
quiries, etc, begun, but not finished,
under the old.
And closely relateds 10 this is another
question. II in process OF investigating
railroads. shippers. etc. under the in
terstaJe commerce act. the commission
discovers evidence of violation of the
antitrust act. what shall IL do about IT,
The commission has nothing To do With
enforcing the antitrust law, yet il is the
particular department of government
that has the powers and privileges and
duties that place il most in touch with
facts concerning violations of that law.
Old Gases Still Pending.
When the new commission was or
ganized. after the new rate law had
been passed, it Inherited from the old
commission. number of cases. some or
them of large Importance. Among these
was the one commonly known as the
Hearst case against the railroads and
coal companies doing business in the an
thracite region. II was charged in the
petition against these concerns that they
were diSObtying both the antitrust law
and the Interstate commerce law. As To
The latter. the commission had some
powers. as 10 the former il had none. ,
tt could indeed, investigate and in
quiTc concerning matters relating To the
antitrust act, but IL could not direct
the Attorney General 10 prosecute.
The anthracite cases had progressed
almost 10 a conclusion before the new
law was passed Originally there was
a petition and an answer. then teSti-
mOuy was takeu--a huge volume of IL.
Then the commission was ready to re-
ceive the abstracts and arguments of
counsel While awaiting these the
whole status of the matter was changed
by the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the case in
NOlVing the relation OF the Baltimore
and Ohio FUad To the coal concerns along
its line. In this case the highest court
held mat railroad companies had no
business to be interested in coal COM
Panles. anyhow. This put new aspect
on the whole matter. So the commits
sion ordered the case 10 be reopened
and reargued with reference to this de-
ctsion
New Law Opens Question.
This was done. but before the last
written briefs and arguments We're sub
mitted the new interstate commerce Law
passed
hear arguments in the case involving
the terminal charges 0n livestock al
Chicago, which opens all these qUcs-
tioGs.
There is one Tnase of the meter
which is especially Interesting. II q
chang" in the law is 20 vItiate all pIO-
CcedIugs had. in given case. before
the new act passed, il is commended that
IL might be possible practically 10 pre-
vent the new act from being useful FOI
IL is almost certain that minor changes
Iu the new act viii be made at about
every session of Congress. No great
ease can be settled within wear, il
there is effort 10 delay IT,
Therefore. it would br possible [,
change the law before any great case
could be decided, OIJlaw all proceedings
under the former law. and compel a
new start de uOvO. This is suggested as
reductio al absuTdum from the theory
that no case can Ice decided under the
new law that was decided under the
old. Good authorities, however insist
u is logical