The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-04

Of questioning suspicion. -. - =.
This situation probably grows out OF
the fact that too much attention has
been paid to talking about court re-
view, and too little. to telling precisely
what it means. ':,s -
What Court Review Is.
Court review, as defined by the presi-
dent, means one thing, and, as defined
by the railroad people, it means some
thing entirely different. The two forces
are as far apart as the poles. The pres
ident will never consent to that sort of
court review which is advocated by
such men as Foraker, Elkins, Kean and
Aldrich, and it is very improbable that
the senate will consent to amend the
bill to conform to their definition OF |
the term. By; the same token, the SEN
ators named are opposed to the presi-
dent s definition Of court review, and
will not willingly accept it, altho In |
the end it looks as if they would be
compelled to do SO. 49,. |
Some of the greatest constitutional,
lawyers in the country have advised
the president that the supreme court
will probably declare the Hepburn bill
invalid, unless it carries some specific
provision for this review. The presi-
dent Is not inclined to accept this as
sertion at it's face value, notwithstand-
ing the great weight of legal authority
and ability that are behind it; but in
order to make sure. that any rate: bill
that, is enacted into law. will stand the
test Of court scrutiny, he has said that
he is willing to have inserted in it
provision for a certain kind of court
review which he himself will phrase.
His ideas on this point have already
been put into definite form. -
The amendment which the president
is willing to accept provides that the
courts may review the orders of the
commission CD to discover if they have
been made in accordance with the law
authorizing them, and (2) to discover
If the orders infringe upon any of the
constitutional rights of the defendant
railway companies
w * Merely a Paraphrase. ~ .* ~.
In%other words, the president would
put into the Hepburn bill words which
are merely a. .paraphrase and elabora-
ton of that section Of the constitution
which forbids the taking of property
without due process Of law-nothing
more and nothing less. His court re-
view language does not enlarge the
court review principle as it is outlined
in the constitution, and if it's presence
in the act is necessary as his advisers
have nearly all declared, in order to
make that act constitutional, he is
quite willing to have it there. :5
The phrasing of the president S
court review section will, further, make
it clear that it is not the desire of con-
gress that the courts shall retry rate
cases that have come up to them from
the commission. -" IT,, .5.s,14-E
This is something very different from
the court review which the friends OF
the railways are after. They go to the
other extreme and want a court review
which will cover not only the legality
of the commissions orders, but the
reasonableness Of the rates fixed il
these orders Such language in the
Hepburn bill would be tantamount tt
saying to the courts that congress ex
pected every case reaching it on appea
to be retired. -. ~... -
Oil and water would as readily mil
as these two ideas. There can be nj
compromise. regarding them, and, as tn
president, has said on another phas,
of the rate question, ANY compromis'
would be surrender a."& s
His plan Innocuous. - 81
However it may be in, other part
Of the country, which obviously canno
follow thet situation at close range,
is apparent in Washington that tn
president IS court review feature is il
noeuous. r. The fight has THUS sturne
ON the kind of court review that >sha
be- granted-whether tie innocuou
kind .assented to by the president wit
a view to helping make, sure that tn
act will stand the test of the court
or the mischieTous kind favored by til
railroads: 5.a,:st*.. - $500
Senator Knox, after he had, read tn
presidents court review amendment
said he would prefer the Hepburn bi
in it's present 4sunamended. form, an
that will perhaps be the opinion {
some of the senators who are direct]
friendly to the, railroads. Should tt
senate conclude not to grant court r
view Of any kind, the president wi
be perfectly satisfied, for he PERSONAL
does uOD Guluh. Iuot A1S
advisers are correct when they infor
him that the act must provide Fl
specific review.
The contest so far as this court 4
view matter is concerned, is a conte
between lawyers; and it; has become
technical that the average man in Il
street, and even the average lawye
& unless he has made something Of
specially Of constitutional matters,
hardly justified in having any hal
and fast opinion regarding it's meri:
The most obvious thing to do,
course, is for the presidents frien
to trust him not to surrender the gre
principle for which he has been co
bending, and patiently wait until son,
thing definite has been agreed to: Th
something definite will be put In
print, and lawyers all over the count
and the public generally will then
hble to discuss it intelligently.
Meanwhile, the cry that the pre-
dent has surrendered, yielded, or b
conceded this, that or the other thi
is to court review, has been raised,
svery instance, by his enemies, or t
snemies OF. thegpolicy he is advocatir
md it's only purpose is to confuse t
public mind, and, if possible, make
loads upon the public confd ences he b
e widely inspired.