The Washington times., 1908-12-26

Continued from First Page)
that is, by commission or some Ike
body. Courts have no right or power
10 make rates
Analysed By Court.
In the Virginia case this was anaIyzed
effectively by the supreme court The
State OF Virginia had created a com
mission, but called 1t commerce court.
That court had fixed certain rates. from
which decision the railroads appealed.
They set up that the business of making
rates is not a proper function OF a
court; and, as in this case. IL was at
tempted TO have a court make rates,
therefore the rates could not be en-
forced.
The Supreme Court OF the United
States found that this was true. pro-
vided the body fixing the rate were
really a court But It inquired In detail
into the delegation OF authority con-
Ierred on the SO-Caled commerce court
OF Virginia, and decided that, though II
was called court this was q mis-
nOmCr; the body was a court in name
only, but was not clothed with any
functions OF a court; II was an admin
istratIVe commission, clothed with none
whatever delegated Legislative powers
Therefore, declared the Supreme Court,
no matter what it may be called, II isn't
q court, and its orders are not to be
abrogated simply because &c was mis-
takenly called one.
Still a Commission
How" said a member Of the Inter-
state Commission today. after recount
ing this Virginia decision. lit is held
that a commission is none the less q
commission, even though II be called
a court Conversely, the court would
have to hold that a so-called commits
sion. vested only with judicial func-
tions. was really n court. no matter
what Il might be called. II the Inter
state Commission be abolished az an
administrative body. and its work con-
fined to the judicial or quasi-judicial
field, IL would be deprived OF the power
10 make rates. There can, 1 think. be
no reasonable doubt Of this in anybody's
mind who will carefully study the Vir-
ginia decision
This is the essence Of the whole mat
ter. In former times, when this ques-
tion Of dividing the powers Of the COM
mission has come up, the argument has
been primarily that a centralized author
ity was preferable TO a divided author
ity.
But now, in addition to that. there is
the diCtum of the Supreme Court that
a court is a court. and a commission
IS commission, no matter by what
names Legislature chances to have desig-
mated them; and the one cannot perform
the duties OF the other.
Work Is Just Begun.
The great task Of railroad regulation
is only just begun. The Interstate
Commerce Commission started twenty
Nit -
more a court than an administrator;
and the preponderance Of opinion today.
in the commission and among students
OF its task. is that il made a grave mis-
take in taking that view of its duties.
1t ought to have regarded itself as pri-
marily an administrative body, and to
have minimized the judicial side.
But, just as John Marshall, in the be-
ginning OF Federal Jurisprudence. set
the stamp of his individuality and
power on the whole conception of the
Supreme Court and its place in the Gov
ernment- so Commissioner Cooley, of
the original commission, started that
body in the notion that IL was a court
He had il sit on the bench and listen
Solemnly TO arguments of counsel Be
cause he was a great lawyer, g con
ceived that II ought 10 issue opinions,
instead of orders. They have frequently
been able. and more frequently they
have established embarrassing prece-
dents.
Opinions of No Use.
But practical administrators declare
there is about as much reason for is
suing long, carefully elaborated opin-
ions, with citations OF authority, as
there would be for the head of the
United States Steel Company delivering
sn opinion to his board of directors.
tabliShmentS.
Having got started off as a court,
however, the commission travelled that
way for years Since the Hepburn act