The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1906-03-28

At the outset Mr. Knox said he agreed
with senators who have contended that
the power 10 fix railroad tolls for trans
portaton is a legislative power, and that
when the legislature has laid down a rule
for the establishment OF rates, the appli-
cation OF such rule 10 specific cases is
matter OF administration which may be
delegated to "a commission, and that the
power to investigate tho reasonableness
OF proposed rate, and to fix a rate for
future observance IS non-judicial pow
er which cannot be conferred upon courts
exercising the judicial power OF the Unit
ed States
Mr. Knox then set forth by citations
from supreme court decisions, the powers
and duties the Interstate commerce COM
mission now possess and perform under
the act TO regulate commerce, and he de-
clared that his review showed that the
commission has abundant power 10 seek
and discover deviations from the great
purpose OF the act to secure equality OF
right for all, but IL wholly lacks power 10
enforce its orders and DEGREES and that
its orders and DEGREES do not have the
force of law until made so by judicial de-
cree.
lie declared his bill, introduced a few
weeks ago. deals with the mischiefs for
which congress is seeking a remedy more
effectually than any measure yet brought
to the attention OF congress.
The purport of the Knox bill was ex-
planned briefly by its author Mr.. Knox
said the theory on which IL was drawn is
that general words I'm n statute which are
sufficiently comprehensive TO cover the
evil aimed 10 make better and more erec-
tive legislation than specific prohibition
OF the evil in the forms In which IL has
appeared.
In celebrating on the fifth section of
his bill. which provides for a review by
thn nf nf m iSgi
Mr. Knox said that the omission OF such
n feature from the public bill constitutes
the main difference between the two
measures.
Mr.. Knox continued: 1T is obvious that
a law comforting the tremendous power
which 1t is proposed by all the bills
under consideration 10 confer upon the
commission to substitute one rate or
practice for another. must be drawn upon
one OF two theories: Upon the theory
that the order OF the commission shall
be final and not renewable by the courts,
or upon the theory that 1t shall be re-
yiewable by the courts / have no hesita-
tlon in saying upon the authority OF the
cases which have already been submitted
TO the senate by the distinguished SEN
ators who have participated in this de-
bate. that a bill drawn upon the theory
that the orders OF the commission shall
be final and unassailable In the courts
would be unconstitutional"
The decisions quoted, said Mr.. Knox
prove that the railroads are entitled 10
their day in court.
His court review section, he said, pro-
vides that the question to be submitted
to the courts IS solely whether the order
OF the commission violates the complain
ants rights. This statement was ainph-
fled as follows:
1T is for the court to decide what those
rights are An attempt to specify what
right shall be determined by the court
might be fatal 10 the constitutionalty OF
the legislation. II the specification should
not include all his rights he would be
shorn OF a constitutional privilege. Should
it undertake TO enumerate rights whlch
lie could not establish, ii would be mean
ingless and unintelligent legislation.
Mr. Knox advocated a provision
against the suspension OF the commits
sion's orders by iaterlocutory DEGREES
without requiring cash deposit or
bond to secure 10 the parties entitled TO
repayment the difference between the
commissions rate and the railroad rate
II the commissions rate were sustained
Warm praise was bestowed by Mr.
Knox upon the men who prepared the
pending bill, but said that he was sim
cerely convinced that as IL now stands,
''it utterly fails to accomplish their BEN
eilceDl puTppstS anu iNN~N "s-'S
feats them"
He reiterated that he regards the bill
as unconstitutional, and gave the follow-
ing reasons:
First. Il does not provide any method
for challenging the unlawfulness OF the
orders of the commission in direct pro-
ceeding against the commission.
Second, II prohibits parties affected
and agRrieved by the commissions or
ders from defending proceedings TO en-
force them upon the ground OF their un-
lawfulnese. -
Third. II so heavy penalties the dis-
obedience OF the commissions orders as
IN make any attempt 10 secure ju-
dicial hearing in any form OF proceeding
impracticable.
Mr. Knox asserted that under the pend
ing bill I'm no way can an order OF the
commission he brought into the court py
nroceedings against the commission. lie
discussed from a legal point OF view his
contention that the bill confers no right
OF review whatever upon the initiative
OF the carrier
Mir. Knox said that most OF the states
which have enacted laws for the regula-
ton of railway rates have PROVIDED LOT
review by the courts. and that similar
provisions for judicial review are To be
found I'm nearly all OF the bills on the sub
iect OF rate regulation that have been In
troduced during the present session OF
congress.
Io added when we consider that the
people are asking for prompt decisive ana
effective action that the present bill DIS
tlnctly contemplatcs review, that IT'S
constitutionaiity h seriously threatened by
failure 90 provide Tor such review " the
other features are tO stand, that prcce-
dents ~ state legislation are I'm favor 0i
review that oil thc bills presented IN
either house provide for or recognize
review that tho hlil itself az presented IN
both houses and az originally prepared hy
the Interstate Commerce commission con-
iainei r. provision for review, and that The
president in his message speats ~ the
! orders helnF subject 90 review when We