Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-18
R A L ROAD RATES
OF THE FIGHT IN
THE SENATE.
Discussing Giving the Courts the
Power to Suspend an Order of
the Commission.

The railroad rate bill continues to he the
storm center at the Capitol and the fact
that some long speeches have already been
MADE OH the subject does not seem 10 have
detracted In the slightest from the interest.
This probably grows ont of the fact that
the point of interest has continually shifted.
In the first stages of the Senate fight Ii was
question whether rate bill could be
passed at all or not. then sentiment crystal
lied on this question, and It was generally
conceded that a rate bin of some sort was
certain to pass. Following this victory of
those who believed In railroad legislation in
terest centered in the discussion, whether
the floor of the Senate or in the privacy
of personal talks. to whether the specific
power of review of orders issued by he in
terstate commerce commission should be
granted to the courts. II was held on one
side that the Hepburn biz itself granted
this power of review to the courts mas
much as the courts could always fake cog
nizance If the ordered rate was condscatory.
On the other hand, those who argued for
the right of review held that IL the power
was already granted ii would do no harm
to have il stated specifically: that the doing
so would render the bill less Liable 70 be
overturned by the Supreme Court
Power to Suspend.
1t is now very generally believed that
some provision providing for court review
is practically certain TO be inserted in the
bin. and the point OF interest Just at present
is as to the nature of this provision The
present discussion circles around the ques-
ton whether, pending review of a decision of
the interstate commerce commission. the
der should be suspended or not. This ques-
ton of suspension is very earnestly argued
on both sides. and it is thought by good
judges 10 be the one point yet really unset
tied in the Senate program The best law
yers in the Senate are divided on the ques-
ton whether the provision attempting to
deprive the courts OF this right of slspen-
sion could eOnstitutionally be enforced.
There Is also wide divergence of opinion
as TO whether, outside OF its legal phases,
SGch power OF suspension ought to lac grant
ed. Many senators argue on the one side
that II the commission fixes a rate and the
courts had the easy power granted them OF
suspendinS such rate pending review that
the entire force of the desired legislation
would be lost. In1smuCh as the old rate
would remain i'll force the railroads, with
their great power, might protract the liti-
CATION for years. and finally, after condi-
lions had entirely changed by the LAPSE OF
four or five years, the rate fixed by the
commission should be upheld. the simmer
would never be able TO recover the extra
amounts paid IN by him in excess of the
commissions rate. Such a review with
suspension powers, would rob the law of all
efficacy, they claim
On the other hand. senators who are in
favor OF giving to the courts the right
or suspension argue just as earnestly
That, aside from the constitutional ques-
tons involved, the idea that suspension
would work an irreparable damage to ship
pers is not well founded. They point out
that there would scarcely be a case IN
which all of the carriers who would be aft
fected by an order of the commission
would be interested in its enforcement
and 1t is commended that those who would
be so interested could be fully protected
while. II the order was enforced neither
the carrier nor those shippers who would
be injured by it could possibly be pro-
tected from injury. They say that a re-
quirement that the difference between the
rates fixed by the commission and the
rates condemned should be deposited in
escrow for payment either to the shippers
or the carrier in accordance with the final
decision of the court would insure every
shipper against loss In the event of the
order being sustained by the court, and
that. on the other hand, it would be i'm
possible to frame a provision that would
protect both the carrier and those shippers
who would be injured by changes in the
relation of rates that might be made bv
an order such as would be set aside by the
reviewing court.