New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-06-08
United States Supreme Court
Gives Interstate Commission
Sole Jurisdiction Over
Railroad Rate Making.
NEW TRIBUNAL REVERSED
No New and Strange" Powers
Given It by Congress, Chief
Justice White Says-Entire
Court Concurs in Far
reaching Opinions.

Washington, June blow AFTER dow
was given to the new Commerce Court
to-day by the Supreme Court Of the
limited States, which upheld the eX-
elusive jurisdiction of the Interstate
Commerce Commission over the admin
istrative machinery of the federal rate
laws.
The Supreme Court departed from its
long established custom of announcing
decisions only on Monday. It was a
"Rlsck Friday" for the Commerce Court,
a. well as for the common carriers which
have applied to it for relief from rulings
Of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The principal decision to-day was an
rounccd by Chief Justice White in the
procter & Gamble case. He was sus-
tanned by the entire court. In sub
etance he held that the Commerce Court
was not TO substitute its judgment for
that Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission in the administration of the rate
laws. The specie point was that those
Who failed to get relief from the Inter
state Commerce Commission have no
right 10 go into the Commerce Court and
have that court pass on the facts 10
ascertain If relief should have been
granted.
Whites Decision FsrreaehIns.
The Chief Justice. however, went
further. He showed that new and
strange powers had not been given to
the Commerce Court, but that 1t sue
ceeded 10 the powers Of the circuit courts
In existence when the Commerce Court
WIS created, and that the Commerce
Court was limited in reviewing the COM
MISSIONS orders 20 questions Of law. In
cases vet 10 be passed on it Is alleged
that the Commerce Court went out OF
the domain Of law and gave judgment on
pure questions Of fact.
He stated the question for decision 10
no whether the authority OF the Com
rnerce Court was confined 10 enforcing
and restraining, as the case might be.
Affirmative orders Of the commission, or
whether IT had the power to exert its
own Judgment by original Interpretation
Of the administrative features Of the act
10 regulate commerce. and on that as
sumption to treat refusal Of the COM
mission to grant relief as an affirmative
order and accordingly pass on its cor
rectness
both from the words Of the act Gre
ating the Commerce Court and from the
general scheme Of rate regulation the
chief Justice said IL was To be seen that
tho Commerce Court had no such broad
powers as it claimed TO possess. He
added
"it cannot be disputed that the act
creating the Commerce Court was in
tended to be but part OF an existing
system for the regulation OF interstate
commerce. and that the making OF it
part OF that system was not intended TO
destroy the existing machinery or
method OF regulation. but to cause II to
D. more efficient by providing moro
harmonious means for securing the Judi
cial enforcement OF the act to regulate
commerce"
Commissions Powers Affirmed.
Chief Justice White declared that Con-
gress had created the Interstate Com
nerce Commission as a quasi judicial
body 10 enforce the laws in order that
there might be unity Of regulation, and
that from 1887 10 1910 it had not been
seriously asserted that, as 70 subjects
which in their nature We're administra-
tive. power resided in the courts 10 eX-
ercise original jurisdiction or 10 enforce
their conceptions AS TO the meaning OF
the act by dealing directly with the sub
Jet. irrespective Of any prior affirmative
action b. the commission.
Originally. he said. the courts felt it a
duty 10 IA ss on both questions Of law
and Of fact. but by 1910 It had come 20
pass that i'm consdcri~~ orders Of the
commission the courts were limited to
determining whether the orders Of the
commission violated the Constitution,
conform ed 10 81 Itory authority, or
whether power has Leen 80 arbitrarily
exercised 10y the commission as virtually
20 transcend the authority conferred, al
though it might not technically be doing
So il was this jurisdiction, he declared,
that the Commerce Court had Inherited.
To adopt the view Of the Commerce
Court as 10 its Jurisdiction, the chief jus
'iec said, would be TO overthrow the sys-
TEN Of rate regulation adopted by Con-
gresg.
Proctor Gamble arc manufacturers II
soap iu Cincinnati. The Inter tate Com
mercc Commission had denied the Gem
psnys complaint against uniform d"mur-
rage rules Of the railroads. The Com
mercc Court while agreeing with the COM
mission findings. had held that Il had
the right 10 review the decision.
No Jurisdiction Over Complaints.
The Supreme Court also held that TN"
Commerce Court was wrong In taking
jurisdiction over the complaint Of Cincin-
mai shippers about rates which the COM
mission had put in force over tine Cincin-
matt New Orleans a. Texas Pacific Rail