New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-12-02
THE VIRGINIA RATE DECISION.

In deciding the Virginia rate case the supreme
Court does not appear to have at1lrmed proadly
that the state courts must be the first resort ol
corporations appealing from the rulings OF STATE
regulstive commissions All that the court has
decided IS that when the law provides Tor
review of the acts of such commission Dy
snecific state court then recourse to the federal
courts cannot be had until the state court named
has been appealed TO and given its decision. In
deed the peculiar reasoning which the Supreme
Court uses in support of its decision seems TO
give little Indication that II is ready &c lay down
a general proposition in favor OF the precedence
of state courts in such cases. II IL nad Deeh
prepared to do so 1t would have decided lhlS
case quite simply on the ground that the plain
tiff had not first exhausted his opportunities
for justice under the state courts.
The Virginia law provided for review or the
acts of the Virginia Corporation Commission by
the state Supreme Court Of Appeals. The rail-
roads did not apply for this review, but went
directly TO the United States Circuit Court
which enioined the Corporation Commission
The United States Supreme Court has now held
that the Virginia law must be carried out and
review must be had by the Virginia court De
fore the case can come under the jurisdiction
of the federal courts.
Now II is to be observed that this virginia
law denied the right Of resort directly to the
CORPORATION Commission just certainly as
do those states which have forbidden such re-
sort under fines and penalties. The Supreme
Court had to find g way to justify the Virginia
law without lending countenance to the IDEA
that state can prohibit an appeal to the FED
eraI courts It did so in this wise: 1t held mat
the action, of the Corporation Commission IN
fixing rates was legislative action, and that
when the law provided for a review thereon by
the Supreme Court of Appeals 1t decreed that the
legislative action should not be complete until
that court, acting legislatvely," had reviewed
IT The final legislative word Of the state Is
mot said until the state Court of Appeals says
AT" In other words the court holds that in
naming the state Supreme Court of Appeals as
the mower TO review the actions OF the Corpora
ton Commission the state conferred upon that
body rate making Legislative functions
which # would not possess if it had not been so
named and that the Legislative process was
not complete until q review was had before the
Supreme Court of Appeals any more than IL
would have been if the state had appointed two
reguIative commissions, before one OF Whicn
the act of regulation should begin, to be com
Melted before the other Until the legislative
nrocess had been cOmpleted-"the final ieg1sla-
tive word said"-ft was not competent To- the
courts pure and simple, with no Legislative
functions, to interfere.
Such appears TO be the reasoning by whlcn
the Supreme Court sustains the right OF the
Legislature to prescribe what courts must nrst
be invoked in the case of public service statutes
without lending countenance TO the popular
Southern doctrine that the Legislature can FOR
bid corporations from taking their cases TO the
federal courts. This reasoning is remarkable,
and gDparentIy three Judges could not accept
# The decision, however, points way 10 those
states which wish 70 have the actions OF pubic
service commissions first passed upon by their
own courts Recourse to it will not, however
end present heartburnings and jealousies, for
the findings of the Virginia Supreme Court OF
Appeals will be- in effect renewable under the
decision, not, as ordinarily only by the Supreme
Court of the United States, but by the United
States Circuit Court.