The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-02-11
therefore be imposed upon the SD
preme COurs of the District.

The creation or corporations dnt. me
amendment embracing the regulation
OF the amount Of their capital stock, IS
a subject matter exclusively within the
legislative power and Is a power that
cannot be delegated, though under a
general act complete in ITS detaIs GER
tain functions relating TO the final act
OF issuing the certificate OF incorpora-
tion may be delegated 10 special asen-
cies.
congress has unlimited power to
amend the charter OF the Washington
Gas Light Company and to increase It's
capital at viii.
May Appeal Case.
while the decision of the Court Of
Appeals halts the plans Of the WASH
ington Gas Light Company TO add mil
lions to it's capitalization. and thus
defeat the people in their attempt 10
lower the price OF gas. an appeal VIII
doubtless be taken to the Supreme
Court of the United States. unless the
laws provisions are SATISFACTORY!
amended at once.
This course. however, viii serve only
20 further air the affairs OF the com
bine. so that Congress may. know the
true condition about gas IN the us
5rict Of Columbia . o.,
In the report Of the washington Gas
Light Company for the year 1907, which
was forwarded to Congress on the lhlre
of this month the company does not
state the value Of the plant and P1op-
erty. saying that that is now d supJecI
OF judicial procedure, and that the III
formation viii be forwarded as soon % ]
the proceedings are teTmlnaJed. Ih+ ac-
lion of the Court OF Appea Jhus makes
II impossible for the District supreme |
Court TO render a decision on this Vaiu-
alton. What the company VIII DO 10 /
meet the requirements Of Congress IN
furnishing this information is nov
subject OF speculation
Not Judicial Power.
Instead Of deIegating that authority
10 municipal officers it gave Il to the
court No judicial power is involved in
the execution of the law The deter
anlnation to be made does not involve an
asserted and contested right, and when
made Is not a fnaI and conclusive one /
that may be given effect by the power
OF court.
The petitioner is not bound TO act
upon the determination, nor is Congress /
bound by IT, Should the petitioner de (
sire to act upon IL from the determine Z
ton, Congress would probably have 10 I
pass an act amending the charter 10 !
that end.
The court is authorized to make reg |
Ulations for the procedure, but IL IS /
given no power TO make the UhlIed
States or the District OF Columbia par
airy powers be delegated; 1t must be eN-
erCised by Congress itself
Rights of Congress.
There is no substantial ground for
the proposition that the power extended
60 the Supreme Court 5 Judicial. one
Congress has ample power 10 ame.-d the
charter OF the Gaslight Company by
Increasing its capital stock, and its right
10 Issue bonds and 10 ascertain all the
necessary Information leading 10 just
exercise OF that power. If II preferred
TO have that inquiry made by some
agency, II had the power 10 delegate
81 70 the municipal offices of the DIS
trict or some other administrative
ss'The act imposed no duty on any one,
the performance Of which could only De
obtained by resort to the judicial pow
ers.
Attempts to Change Court.
THE act is an attempt to convert one
OF the courts into an administrative
agency. No judicial power Is invoked
in the duty required by the act as be-
fore stated; the determination IS not
a final and conclusive one that may be
executed by the power Of the court.
Powers Not Judicial.
The majority opinion says:
Notwithstanding TIE powers attempt
ing to be conferred upon the District
Supreme Court, they are not judicial in
q constitutional sense. They are, how
ever, quasi-judiciaL The exercise Of
the power we have held TO be unlawful;
therefore, q 5 its exercise might possibly
result in injury, We will order the writ
OF prohibition to issue 10 prohibit fur
Their proc ceilings in the court below as
pra yed.
Here we have a right in the nature
Of property. created by law, a deprivita-
ton Of that right. the formal complaint
against the party denying Il. While IN
court OF competent jurisdiction with
power 20 determine the contested right
and render judgment conclusive OF the
controversy that should be enforced in
the ordinary course Of judicial proceed
There is no difference between the /
statute under consideration Gin the case
OF the Canadian Northwest railway YER
sus The international Bridge Company
and one that would require the court
10 hear evidence relating to all Of the
conditions OF business o. the gas com
pany and ascertain Its rate OF charges /
10 the consumer No one pretends that
upon the court
Courts Ruling or Writ.
The second question to be. determined
IS 10 whether or not IL has the right
to issue a writ Of prohibition is dis
posed OF by the court, as follows:
Prohibition IS a writ Of remedial
perogative OF the common law. The
Court of Appeals cannot claim super
visnry power over inferior courts Of the /
District that would warrant the issue
OF such a writ
Writes are ISSUED IN the aid of ap-
RELATE Jurisdiction, and under the act
creating the Court Of Appeals appellate /
jurisdiction is given to the court. There
appeared to be no other remedy what
ever in the case. While the Gas Light {
Company might have the right Of appeal
from the order of the court below, re
fusing the relief prayed, there is no
corresponding right Of appeal from an
order granting that relief. for there is
no adverse party against whom the
order runs. Neither the District Com
missioners nor the Attorney General
could appeal from the order because
they are not made by the act parties
10 the proceeding. Should the hearing
contemplated IN the court proceed to q
final determination, the possible injury
70 public interests appTehended. there
fore, could not be averted.
Notwithstanding that the powers At
tempted 10 be conferred upon the Dis
trict Supreme Court are not judicial
IN a constitutional sense, thew are. how
ever. quasi The exercise Of the pOve