Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1910-01-13
NO. Is

few orders of much CONSEQUENCES has
been permitted to 30 without protest,
that the questions presented by these w.
rtous suits were fundamental, az the con.
stitutionality Of the act itself was In d.
sue, and the right Of congress- to dele.
| gate to any tribunal authority to eetab,
lish an interstate rate was denied. bua
that perhaps the most serious practical
| question raised concerned the extent of
the right Of the courts to review the or
ders OF the commission; and It was point
ed out that II the contention Of the car
riers In this latter respect alone were sus-
tained but little progress had been
made In the Hepburn act toward the ef-
fectlye regulation Of interstate transpor.
tation charges. In 12 OF the cases ~
ferred to, It was stated. preliminary In
functions were prayed for, being Rranted
In six and refused In six.
1T has from the first been well UNDER
stood" says the commission, that the
success Of the present act as q regulate
ing measure depended largely upon the
Facility with which temporary iniunc.
uons could be obtained, II a railroad
company, by mere allegation in It's bin
OF complaint, supported by exparte am.
davits, can overturn the result Of dayaf
ot patient investigation, no very satisfan-
tory result can be expected. The railroad
loses nothing by these proceedings since
Il they fail, 1t can only be required to
establish the rate and to pay to shippers
tne diherenoe between the higher rate
collected and the rate which il finaliv
held to be reasonable. In point Of fart
It usually profits. because It can seldcm
20 required to return more than a frao-
uon OF the excess charges collected"
IN its report for the year 1909 the COM
mission ahowe that Of the II cases =.
ferred to in In 1909 report only one had
peen decided In the supreme court Of the
United States, although five other cases
mad been argued. and submitted to that
tribunal in October, l90A 8s}
Or course, every carrier affected by an
order Of the comnisslon has constitu-
uonal right to, appeal To federal court
70 protect i from the enforcement .of m
order which II may show to be ptiFha-
1acie conhscatory or unjustAy dlsoEihlna.
tory IN its erect; and a. this application
may % made to court IN any district 81
result In the enforcement Of tho order
but great uncertainty ls caused by corr
tEArlety Of decision. 80
The questions presented BY these a..
phcations are too often technical. in
Lnelr character and require q knowiadRa
Of the business and the mastery " 4
great volume Of conflicting evidence
which u tedious to examine ana IRON.
eleaeme to comprehend. It would not 80
proper to attempt TO deprive am ar.
poration Of the right to the reviaVg ~
. court Of any order or decrea whleS
y undlsturbed, would rob It OF rea16s. s
able return Apon ita Investment or vgouId
subject II 10 burdens which would IIn-
Justly dlscciminata against It and a ~.
yor M q other carriers similarly sltuateA
What u, however, Of supreme ininoe. Y
lanne 4 that the declgign of.ssudh 0iISS.
lions snail be ab apeANy a. tii0 natEfdf6f
the circumstances Will admit, and thaf
l uniformity Of decision be secured -
~ to bring about an eflectivB. syetenns
Itic and scientific enforcement or the
commerce law, rather than conflicting do.
llsions and uncertainty Of final result
Recommends "court Of commsroe.p
For this purpose I recommend the
establishment Of court OF the Unitbd
Itates composed Of Ave Judges denik.
lated for such purpose from among the
ircult judges Of the United states. 10
y known a. the ''united States court
4 commerce." which court shall he
lolhed With exclusive original jurlsdlcs
lon over the following classes OF Caeebs
~ All cases for the enforcement, 9th.
Fwise than by adjudication and 0OlleO.
lon, OF forfeiture or penalty, or BY iIs
lotion Of criminal punishment. Of any