The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-04-29

ALtQ-cD 10 cpEdhr VI NetA"N NJ any pA4
time thereafter in the hands Of the pur-
chaser or his heirs. successors. or as
signs-upon the ground that Il was in
whole or in part tainted in its acquire
ment by the conduct OF somebody dead
as julius Caesar. before the purchaser
was born, Because for example. as IS
seriously charged in this case. former
president generation ago saw proper
for some reason that does not appear.
20 destroy the books or because, az
some period in the history Of the con-
Germ, il charged a legally established
rate for its product, that according 10
modern misinformatIon or misconception
was unusual usuriOus. or excesslvei
With all due respect. in the very nature
Of things. irrespective or this decision
or Of any and all other decisions on the
subject, such theory is so utterly impos-
slble, impractible. and indefensible as a
working hypothesis that even had i
foundation in fact, which il has not.
it would be a base reflection upon that
complexion 20 which we all shall come
at last" to call IL rhetorical rot
Returning again 10 the text OF this
great decision To know which is TO be
legally educated on this most vital SUBJ
ject-
The third point Of the four Set out to
analytic is that:
Every such deprivation Of the power Of
reasonable rates" (no matter by whom
authorized must inevitable be Illegal
and indefensible unless il be the result
not only Of judicial investigation but OF
judicial Observation-Disclosures due pro-
cess Of law" That involves. Of course.
the preservation Of the defendants pro-
verbal day in Court. which is more or less
popularity believed to be the basis OF the
old proverb-"Even every cog shall have
\ his day"
/ Now, put the question squarely to the
/ learned author Of Ibis resolution himself,
l Is II not clear that its enactment involves
! n il should become Iaw-CD our depri-
walton OF the use OF our property without
/ judicial investigation and without due
/ process Of law Surely I ought not
\ 10 be called upon to make an argument
10 prove so seif-evident proposition as
this. that depriving US. as the Act does.
OF the use and enjoyment OF our prop
erty is substantially depriving Us Of the
property itself.
/ To put IL vet in other words Mr.. Chair
man. this proposition stripped TO the skin
amounts 10 this and nothing more-it IS
the substitution for the purpose Of de-
priving US Of our property Of legislative
/ inquiry for that judicial investigation
which. as I have shown you. the law
has declared. and the Supreme Court OF
the United States here declares. IS IN
violably and inalienably, our constitU-
tional right and privilege. II may be true.
that It was within the power Of Congress
ito have limited the right OF the Company
In its original charter. 10 mortgage its
property. but II is doubtful whether the
courts would have sustained a limitation
that would have absolutely deprived thu
i, Company of the Right Of Self Defense
involved in the power 10 issue evidences
OF debt Be that as It may, Congress did
not see proper 20 reserve such an indis-
pensible power and can not now. sixty
years after the original grant under
take 10 alter or ammend the Company's
contracts by abridging its power TO Hqui-
, date or protect them.
And lastly. Gentlemen OF the Commit
, tee, the Supreme Court in this decision
having first laid down for our guidance
, the method 70 be employed judicial in
yestlgationl 10 ascertain what IS reason
able in any given case; and. secondly.
. the measure OF the element OF reasona-
bIeness. to-wit. the actual value OF the
property invested in the business; and
thirdly. the right invariably vested in the
employer 10 the use and enjoyment Of
the property employed unless and until
, deprived thereof by due process OF law,
comes finally 10 the fourth corner stone
Of the edihce and tells us why it is f.
=. legal and unconstitutional 70 deprive the
employer OF the use OF the property en-
, lplOyed. For that in so far as the COM
pany is thus deprived while other per
sons are permitted 70 receive reasonable
. profits upon their invested capital the
company Is deprived Of that equal pro-
d. lection Of the laws irrevocably guaranteed
20 all" for which glorious definition. the
lconsummate flower or this modern Magma
. Charts, let US all with one consent what
ever be our differences, devoutly thank
God,
II you viii kindly indulge me a moment
I, longer before closing this Illuminated
page. I will ask YOU TO note the quaIifca-
vested capital the reasonable profits OF
? which the Company cannot be deprived.
are the fruits then. Of their actual in
vestment-not OF their capital stock as
here commended; not of their outstanding
; bonds as here insisted. Manifestly, not al
all; the qualification is broader than any
|. | such narrow. meaningless. inconSequen-
= tial illogical limitation. Gentlemen OF
the Committee. II is not only broader, but
deeper than that. II is comprehensive
u enough 10 cover the entire investment for
Il all il is worth. Everything, IL cannot be
y too often said. OF value the Company has
z accumulated and acquired and employed
, in the conduct Of its business; everything
; real and perSonal-tangible and intan-
. gfhle. great and small, 1t is clear, there
fore. is II not that whether or not the
u stock was legally issued. or the bonds
u legally issued, or the certificates Of in
< Idebtedness legally issued. is simply a moot
i question: at best at academic question
ii without any earthly bearing upon the
e IreaSonableness Of the Company's rates OF
20 its right TO now issue refunding bonds tc
lie liquidate it's existing liabilities OF any
y kind. so long as the total amount put
y into circulation does not exceed the actual
x value Of the property upon which IL Is
'e based.
N 4 man who can successfully dispute
d that proposition has legal genius enough
lie 20 drive a coach and four through IN,
he multiplication table, If there be any sucl
" intellectual juggler alive. let him be pro
OF duced. even though the Supreme Court o
&c the Tinted States fees L. terror heFor