New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-04-14
liant COURT REVIEW.
argument in FarOr Of amendment
to Public Utilities Bill.

Counsel representing the principal railroads yes
tsTday authorized a statement embodying in part
the argument presented last week 10 the legis
lative committees in charge Of the Public Service
Commissions bill in favor OF court review pro-
vision II follows. in part:
The chief features Of the proposed court review
amendment arc these:
?. The procedure to he simple, peremptory and
3. An order appealed from not to be suspended
pendlng the appeal unless Supreme Court justice
4 The Appellate Division 10 hear the appeal upon
with the right take additional evidence pro-
Elded ihat IN such case the commission may. II II
evidence
This proposes explicitly TO authorize judicial re-
view OF orders Of the commission. not only upon
the question of lawfulness-that is to say the mere
jurisdiction power Of the commission to make
them-but upon their reasonabeness and justice.
Mlttnln the scope of the act il is possible indeed
highly probable that orders within the jurisdiction
or the commission as prescribed by the bill may
naNe-and some Of them undoubtedly will have
SlloIIilous eIIects upon investments now made or
hereafter 70 be made This would, for instance, he
equipment or Change Of otiVe poWer The OF oe
would BE- in effect a decree for the payment OF
IT. Therefore the confidence Of investors In rail-
ROAD securities Is 70 be preserved, or if financial
ana pubic confidence generally Is 10 he preserved
the question whether an order te unrea soma ble or
an abuse Of jurisdictional discretion shonid be
subject TO revision, precisely as the acts of ius-
uces OF the supreme Court subject even
TIC question concerns far more than the safety
OF eAlstng ACKNOWLEDGMENT and almost vital
as such SAFETY ought 10 he 70 the II WmaknE power
or n civilized and industrial state Railroad prob
lens areor. in this country. ought 20 be-in larger
part problems OF the future. Their solution de-
ponds upon new end additional provisions Of capital
from time 10 time Investors require something
more than promise that their capital not TO he
confiscated.
legislative acts may drive capital away from
railroad investments: they Of course coerce
capital TO enter them The Legislature cannot even
promote such Investments except as II assures
fair and reasonable public treatment of such capt
tai, with the same safeguards which belong 20
capital elsewhere invested.
~ Is said that the owners Of railroad property
ton against taking private property without just
compensation But where IL TO he lodged the final
practical decision as to what is within that prohi
bltion? II commissioners finally decide what IS
reasonable and just, then in chefest measure it is
they who apply the constitutional prohibition, and
property subject 20 their orders is without the
protection by the courts assured other property.
There is a further and constitutional reason for
the proposed amendment The bill would make dis
obedience Of order TO be a crime punishable with
Imprisonment and large penalties. and would au-
thorize awards Of damages at the suit OF public
authorities or of private persons. Unless there be
a judicial power in proper cases to suspend tho
operation OF the order during the review the car
rier even upon the question of jurisdiction, can
not appeal unless il assume the risk that II il
guess wrong as to the jurisdictional question IL
shall be subject TO criminal penalties and to dam
ages.