New-York tribune., 1907-05-13
COURT REVIEW AGAIN

The New York Globe" renews its demand
that court review provision be included in tbe
utilities Dill. 1t contends that the general prac
ice OF the country has been TO include n court
review provision in similar legislation. and saws
The public has awaited with no small curiosity.
d statement of the reasons Warrantinr NaW-
York IN departing from the policy of the uatfon
Gnu oi oiher states, but far nothing salts
factory has been presented.
we refer The Globe" to n speech which co1--
| erhor Hughes delivered In Utica on Aprl for q
/ satisfactory statement Of the reason why y court
| review provision is deemed unwise. The Gov
! erhor says that the review Of judicial questions
the only questions that could properly come be-
lore lhe courts, cannot be curtaled nv tho
Legsiatufe The courts proceed by virtue of
their Inherent powers under the constitution
II IS idle TO attempt 10 fetter their action -
The Governor goes on:
different question is presented v.ba, = j.
urged mat al orders of the commission should
be TeVieWable by the courts regardless Of tba
question whether the commission has exceeded
JUS dulHollly or any constitutional privilege has
been ignored. There is no occasion for sucb a
broad provision for court review unless II is de
sired commit to the courts ,hosn 40, ~,
which do not involve the question Of deprivation
OF property without due process of law or Jvith
out Just compensation but are matters which
nnlghl appropriately be decided by the I,eeis-
iature or by an administrative commission To
provide right of appeal the courts from
every oFoer OF the commission not only invites
Heiay ana unnecessary multiplicity of proceed
InsS, Dut has for its object the substitution of
the judgment Of the court for the action of the
commission. TO give the court mower +o boar
such appeals. to take evidence and to reverse
or 10 modify the orders of the commission comes
SIMPLY to this, that the court becomes i'm affact
tIle rullhg commission and the commission orc
ated by the Legislature is simply q hoard "a
take evidence and make what are IN affact
recommendations ~ III ehect'
ms speech of the Governors was not cost in
the form OF an explanation Of why the utiIitiao
blll departs from the policy Of the nation and
OF other states but it explains the reason inst
'he same. The court review provision Is NOT
necessary to protect property rights and tbara
Is no "lher excuse for putting it in the bill
The Globe seems TO have another avc,so
IN mind 1t says: 1T is not clear how nucb
jurisdiction the courts would assume - H.
matter We're left open--if reviews were merely
implied, with the courts determining for them
selves into what questions they should inonira
This seems to imply that the courts do nor lno,,,
what are judicial and what are admiuistrottva
questions, and do not understand their copStit,,
tional functions The courts will comnrabepd
their duties without any direction for a court
review. provision for general review of all
the commissions orders would be an Invitation
10 the courts 10 depart from their constitutional
field, the consideration of judicial questions and
enter fhe administrative field Just aS truly rs
court review of every act of the Governor wouId
be AN encroachment upon the administrative