The new era., 1910-01-20

Washington, Jan. THE following is
PresidsA Taft's message to congress on
he sj0fct of needed legislation re-
lardIng yhe Interstate commerce law and
be control of the trusts:
To the Senate and House of Represent
lives: l withheld from my annual mes
age discussion of needed legislation
nder the authority which congress ha!
regulate commerce between the states
md with foreign countries, and said that
would bring this subject-matter to your
tenuon later in the session. According
\, | beg to submit to you certain recon-
kendations as to the amendments to the
tterstate commerce law and certain CON
derations arising out of the operations
i the antitrust law suggesting the wis
pm of federal incorporation of indus
Hal companies.
Interstate Commerce Law.
In the annual report OF the interstate
bmmerce commission for the year 1908,
ttention Is called to the fact that be-
Reen July l, 1908, and the close of that
far, lG suits had been begun to set aside
Fders of the commission (besides one
Fmmenced before that date), and that
w orders of much consequence had
fen permitted to go without protest; I;
lat the questions presented by these va
Gus suits were fundamental. as the con-
nationality of the act itself was in is
be, and the right of congress to dele
fte to any tribunal authority to estab-
1sh an interstate rate was denied: but
bat perhaps the most serious practical
lestion raised concerned the extent of
e right of the courts to review the or
FRS of the commission: and it was point
out that IL the contention of the car
ers in this latter respect alone were sus-
'lincd. but little progress had been
Iade in the Hepburn act toward the eff
lctve regulation of interstate transpor-
luon charges. In u of the cases re-
lrred to. 1t was stated. preliminary in
2nctions were prayed for, being granted
six and refused in six.
1T has from the first been well under
ood." says the commission. that the
ccess of the present act as regulat-
6 measure depended largely upon the
cility with which temporary injunc-
pns could be obtained. II a railroad
mpil by mere allegation in its bill
cobW1aint. supported by exparte afii-
wits. can overturn the result of days
patient investigation. no very satisfac-
ry result can be expected The railroad
Ees nothing by these proceedings since
they fail. 1t can only be required to
tablish the rate and to pay to shippers
e difference between the higher rate
Allected and the rate which is finally
I'D to be reasonable. In point of fact
usually profits, because 1t can seldom
required to return more than a frac-
fn of the excess charges collected"
IN its report for the year 1909 the COM
tssion shows that of the II cases re-
Fred to In Its 1908 report. only one had
Zen decided in the supreme court of the
4ited States, although five other cases
"a been argued and submitted to that
4bunal in October. 1909
pr course. every carrier affected by an
,tSS ho.
fnal right to appeal to a federal court
protect it from the enforcement of an
3der which 1t may show to be prima-
3cie confiscatory or unjustly discrimina-
fy In its effect: and as this application
3y be made to a court In any district of
5e United States. not only does delay
fult in the enforcement of the order.
great uncertainty is caused by con-
.hrety of decision.
he questions presented by these ap-
cations are too often technical in
i cir character and require knowledge
the business and the mastery of a
eat volume of conflicting evidence
Ihich is tedious to examine and trou-
fsome to comprehend. 1t would not be
doper to attempt to deprive any cor
1ration of the right to the review by
\ court of any order or decree which.
1undisturbed. would rob 1t of a reason
lie return upon Its investment or would
bject It to burdens which would un-
ftly discriminate against 1t and in IA
tr of Aother carriers similarly situated.
that p, however. of supreme impor-
pee that the decision of such ques-
lns st1 be as speedy as the nature of
p cir distances will admit. and that
uniformity of decision be secured so
| to bring about an effective, system
Fc and scientific enforcement of the
fmmerce law, rather than conflicting de-
ions and uncertainty of final result.
recommends "Court Of Commerce."
For this purpose 1 recommend the
Enlistment of court OF the United
ttes composed of five Judges desg-
ted for such purpose from among the
Icuit judges of the United States, to
i known as the UNITED States court
II commerce." which court shall be
thed with exclusive original jursdic-
IN over the following classes of cases:
~ All cases for the enforcement. 9TH
wise than by adjudication and collec-
n" of forfeiture or penalty, or by in
ftion of criminal punishment. of any
fer OF the interstate commerce COM
Jssion other than for the payment Of
fney.
p All cases brought to enjoin. set
Ide, annul or suspend any order or
3uirement of the interstate commerce
omission
p All such cases as under section
| the act of February 10, 1903. known
. the "Elkins act" are authorized to
. maintained in a circuit court of the
tied States
y All such mandamus proceedings
under the provisions of section 70 or
1tion 23 of the Interstate commerce
are authorized TO be maintained in
Putt court of the United States
feasons precisely analogous to those
4ch induced the congress to create the
3rt of customs appeals by the provi-
n1s in the tariff act of August 5. 1909.
II be urged in support of the creation
order to provide a sum ent num-
of Judges to enable this court to be
hstituted 1t will be necessary to au-
rize the appointment of Ave add
lal circuit judges. who. for the pur-
les OF appointment, might be distrib-
"a to thcse circuits where there is at
1 present time the largest volume of
3iness such as the second. third. fourth.
ehth Md eighth circuits. The act
uld empower the chief Justice AZ any