The Norfolk weekly news-journal., 1910-01-14

annual compensation up to 100000.
The regular sessions of such court
should be held at the capital, but 1t
should be empowered to hold sessions
i'm different parts of the United states
If found desirable; and its orders and
judgments should be made final, sub
jeCt only to review by the supreme
court of the United States, with the
provision that the operation of the de-
cree appealed from shall not be stayed
unless the supreme court shall so or.
der.
Would Restrict lnjunctions.
The commerce court should be EN-
powered in its discretion to restrain
or suspend the operation of an order
of the interstate commerce commits
sion under review, pending the final
hearing and determination of the pro
Ceeding, but no such restraining order
should be made except upon notice
and after hearing, unless in cases
where ir"eparable damage would 9th
erwise ensue to the petitioner. A
Judge of that court might be empow-
cred to allow a stay of the commits
! SiOn's order for Il period of not more
than sixty days, but pending applica-
| tion to the court for its order or in
junction then only where his order
| shall contain Il specific finding based
upon evidence submitted to the judge
making the order and identified by
reference thereto, that such irrep.
arabic damage would result to the
petitioner, specifying the nature of
| the damage.
Under the existing law the inter
state commerce commission itself in
itiates and defends litigation in the
courts for their enforcement, or in the
defense of it's orders and DEGREES, and
| for this purpose it employs attorneys
who. while subject to the control of
the attorney general, act upon the in
itiative and under the instructions of
the commission. This blending of adj
ministrative, Legislative and judicial
functions tends, in my opinion, to i'm
pair the efficiency of the commission
by clothing it with partisan character
istics and robbing it of the impartial
judicial attitude it should occupy in
| it. In my opinion all litigation af-
| it. In my opinion all litigation af.
| fecting the government should be un.
der the direct control of the depart
ment of Justice; and | therefore rec.
ommend that all proceedings, orders
and DEGREES of the interstate com
merce commission be brought by OF
against the United States co nomine
and be placed in charge of an assist
ant attorney general acting under the
direction of the attorney general.
The subject of agreements between
carriers with respect to rates has been
often discussed in congress. Pooling
arrangements and agreements were
condemned by the general sentiment
of the people, and under the Sherman
antitrust law, any agreement between
carriers operating in restrain OF inter
state or international trade or com
merce would be unlawful. The repub
lican platform of 1908 expressed the
belief that the interstate commerce
law should be further amended so as
to give the railroads the right to make
and publish traffic agreements subject
to the approval of the commission but
n maintaining always the principle o.
competition between naturally compel
ing lines and avoiding the common
control of such lines by any means
whatsoever.
Would Permit Rate Pools.
In view of the complete control ovel
rate-making and other practices o.
interstate carriers established by the
acts of congress and as recommended
in communication, | see no reason why
, agreements between carriers, subjec
to the act specifying the classfications
of freight and the rates, fares anC
charges for transportation of pasSen
gers and freight which they may agree
to establish should not be permitted
provided copies of such agreement!
, be promptly filed with the commission
, but subject to all the provisions of the
interstate commerce act, and subjec
, to the right of any parties to sucl
= agreement to cancel it as to all or an!
. of the agreed rates, fares, charges o.
= classifications by thirty days notice il
: writing to the other parties and to thu
commission.
) Much complaint is made by ship
5 pers over the state % the Law lnhe
which they are held bound to know
the legal rate applicable to any pro
} posed shipment, without, as a matte
of fact, having any certain means o
: actually ascertaining such rate. 1t ha
: been suggested that to meet this
grievance carriers should be required
upon application by a shipper, to quot
. the legal rate in writing and that til
, Shippers SnOulu De protected III acIlni
! upon the rate thus quoted; but thu
: objection to this suggestion is tina
: it would afford a much too easy meth
Cd of giving to favored shippers ur
, reasonable preferences and rebates.
! think that the law should provid
: that carrier, upon written reQueS
: by an intending shipper, should quot
in writing the rate or charge applica
BILE to the proposed shipment unde
, any schedules or tariffs to which cal
rier is a party and that if the part
making such request suffer damage il
, consequence of either refusal or omis
> sion to quote the proper rate, or il
consequence of a mis.statement of tn
rate, the carrier shall be liable to
= penalty in some reasonable amount
say $3.50, to accrue to the Unitet
States and to be recovered in a civ
il action brought by the appropriate
district attorney Such penalt.
> would compel the agent of the carrie
to exercise due diligence in quoting
the applicable legal rate, and woult
thus afford the shipper a real measure
, of protection, while not opening thu