The Cairo bulletin., 1910-01-08

today transmitted his combined mes
sage on the interstate commerce and
antitrust laws to congress. Following
is part OF the message:
interstate Commerce Law.
III the annual report OF the Inter
state Commerce Commission for the
year 1908 attention is called to the
fact that between July / 1908, and
the close OF that year sixteen SUITS
had been begun 10 set aside orders
of the commission (besides one com
menced before that datel. and that
few orders of much consequence had
been permitted 70 ga..without protest;
that the questions prc1ented by these
various suits were fundamental as
the constitutonaity of the act itse.f
was in issue, and the right of CON
gress to delegate to any tribunal au-
thority to establish an interstate rate
was denied; but that perhaps the
most serious practical question raised
concerned the extent OF the right of
the courts to review the orders of the
commission and it was pointed out
that il the contention of the carriers
in this latter respect alone We're aus
tained but little progress had been
made in the Hepburn act toward the
effective regulation of interstate
transportation charges. In twelve ofI
the cases referred to, it was stated,
preliminary injunctions were prayed
for, being granted in six and refused
in six.
In its report for the year 1909 the
commission shows that of the seven
teen cases referred TO in its 1903 re-
port. only one had been decided in
the supreme court of the United
States, although five other cases had
been argued and submitted to that
tribunal in October 1909.
OF course, every carrier affected by
an order of the commission has q
constitutional right to appeal to fed
eral court to protect it from the en-
forcement of an order which it may
show to be a prima facie contiscatory
or uniustly discriminatory in its eff
feet. and as this application may be
made to a court in any district of the
United States, not only does delay
result in the enforcement of the or.
der, but great uncertainty is caused
by scontrariety of decision. The ques-
tions presented by these applications
nj fan nf fnnhniHal in their char
acter and require knowledge of the
business and the mastery of great
volume Of conflicting evidence which
is tedious to examine and trouble
some to comprehend. 1t would not be
proper to attempt to deprive any cor
poration of the right to the review
by court Of any order or decree
which, ii undisturbed, would rob it of
a reasonable return apon its invest
ment or would subject it to burdens
which would uniustly discriminate
aaginst it and in favor of other car
-iers similarly situated What u.s..
however, of supreme importance. isl
that the decision of such questions
shalt be as speedy us the nature of,
TIE circumstances will admit. and that
a uniformity of decision be secured
so as to bring about an effective sys-
tematic, and scientific enforcement of
tAe commerce law, rather than con
ficting decisions and uncertainty OIL
final result.
For this purpose ! recommend the
establishment Of court OF the Uni
ted States composed of five judges
designated for such purpose from
among the. circuit judges of the Uni
ted States, to be known as the United
States Court of Commerce. which
court shall be clothed with exclusive
original jurisdiction over the follow
ing classes Of cases
~ All cases for the enforcement.
otherwise than by adjudication and