The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1911-06-10
PROPHETS WHO DEAL
IN JUDICIAL FUTURES

| Inc easiest OF all arguments
against any piece of proposed legis-
lation is to claim that it is uncon-
stitutional. A constitution is phras-
ed in very general terms. A court
charged with the power to interpret
constitutions can procure about any
result that Is in the mind of the
court, as witness the recent decisions
| in the Standard Oil and Tobacco
cases, in which the highest court in
the land, not finding the law to its
liking, has legislated into the statute
such language as undue" and, "un-
reasonable which the Congress
never put there.
| Anybody can claim that a statute
is unconstitutional, with some chance
of being sustained by a court, just
as anybody may bet upon a. horse
race with some chance of naming the
| winner.
Even where a court seems to have
( taken strong position there is no
absolute certainty that it will keep to
| in that part Of his opinion, in which
he says that in the Standard Oil case
the Supreme Court has reversed its
views steadily held for fifteen years
But there are laws SO thoroughly
settled in principle that courts of last
| resort find great difficulty in upset
| ting them, not 80 much, perhaps, be-
cause Of difficulties of language or
public opinion that follows violently
reactionary opinions by judicial tri-
bunals
What has here been said has spe-
cial reference to the certain letter,
signed Daniel Davenport read by
House Leader Banks, in the Gen
eral Assembly, yesterday, apparently
! in extenuation of the exceedingly un-
satisfactory attitude of the house
| leader toward all public utilities
legislation.
Mr.. Davenport, for lack of time
or for some other reason, neglects TO
specify the particular. features of the
| minority bill, which he refers to us
unconstitutional and likely to be
relegated to the scrap heap"
Can it be that he means the pro-
vision authorizing the commission %
fix rates?
But such power has been given to
state commissions again and again
and has many times been confirmed
by the courts.
1t is power commonly delegated
by the legislature and commonly ex-
ercised.
AS applied to hack drivers, ex-
pressmen and cabmen it is exercised
by half the cities of the United
States. 1t is right that has come
down through centuries and that has
been delegated by the supreme legis-
| lative authorities ever since govern
ments were established.
The interstate commerce commits
sion exercises powers analogous 70
the powers proposed in the minority
report, relating to service and the
like. The legislation creatiResit has
been frequently affirmed by the Fed
eral Supreme Court.
The powers granted to the Public
Service Commissions of New York
much more extensive than those con-
ferred by the minority bill, are of
undoubted constitutionality.
Virtually the claims of Mr.. Dav-
export and House Leader Banks, IF
| they are anything more than cloak
to cover hatred of the very principle
of regulation of public services in
the interest of the people, amount to
a covert attack upon the courts. To
assert in advance of the action of
the supreme court in this case that
it will destroy the law as it would be
after the adoption of the public util-
| tiles bill, is to fix public attention
upon the court as out of touch with
| the course of legislation in the Unit
ed States and, indeed, throughout
| the civilized world, and to ascribe 20
the highest judges views and mo-
tives inconsistent with progress and
the custom of the land, and this
without /, the slightest evidence TO
back the assertion.
We are not sure but that the
Judges of the supreme court would
be justified in bringing an action
| against Mr.. Davenport and House