The Washington times., 1912-07-26
THRUST
AT RATES BODY
ST|RS CONGRESS
Bold Effort Made to Strip
Commerce Commission
of All Power.
CONTINUED from First Page,

chairman Of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, Judge Charles A. Prouty,
which was used In support Of the Boz
ported. But It is now explained by Of
ficials Of the Interstate Commission,
that when Judge Prouty wrote that let
ter. he had different bill In mind; the
testimonial he gave In behalf OF ono
ent one! On this point II was impes-
Judge Prouty, who is out Of the city.
Skillful Campaign.
When the real inwardness of tbA
scheme was discovered and explained to
members OF both houses, It promptly
became apparent that a skillfui cam
paign had been undertaken to get
bad bill through Congress, masquerad-
ing as useful measure In the interest
of the shipper. Nobody except tho
shipper was heard OF In connection with
It. 1t was going to give him some
relief. That was the claim
put forth.
To explain exactly what was under
taking, It is necessary to 60 back to
the Hepburn legislation of 1906. At that
time, the great question was between
the marrow" and the broad" court re-
dhas r. wne.ner on appeal from
might review the facts, the decisions
based on the facts, and the iudrment
and discretion of the commission: or
It might only consider legal and
INST ,aI%s1 grs,,a questions. ms -
the latter, the narrow" The broad re-
view would mean that the court, on ap-
peal, could substitute it's Judgment on
all features, for the judgment Of the
commission. IL 1t chose; on fact, the
the commission would be nothing more
than an investigating body to ASCERTAIN
Facts for instruction Of the court, and
the court would be free to examine,
ana II II chose. reject any findings of
The decision was a comprou,ise hut
when II reached the Supreme Court that
body fatty declared for the narrow re-
view; the courts must accept the COM
missions findings of facts, and it's gem
eral judgment. The court con concern
itself only as to:
l-Constitutional questions.
2-The question of whether the COM
mission has exceeded the authority re-
posed in II by the law.
S-The question whether the commits
sion has been arbitrary; whether de-
hearing. due process. etc.
Ihat Is ALL II, for instance, the COM
mission should order a rate reduced 90
per cent, and II that could not be shown
% be unconstitutional because confisca-
:ory, or unlawful because in excess OF
he commissions power, or arbitrary
hen the court had ~ business inauir-
ng whether the rate prescribed is
That Is the commissions
business. and the Supreme Court de-
'tituting its judgement for that of the
Sustained By High Court.
Thus the Supreme Court held in vari-
BUS cases. The Commerce Court. how
ever. has not agreed. 1t has been reach
ing out for the power to substitute its
own findings OF fact for those of the
commission and its own judgmsnt for
mat OF the commission. The railroads
1aturally. have been anxious that the
They regard that court as highiy
to them.
Being defeated by the Supreme Court
me railroad interests came here and
hat It should give them the broaS re, so
view they always wanted, and repose in
me Commerce Court the powers which
{ has insisted on taking.
The Borland bill added to the present
'eyiew provision of the Interstate COM
nerce law. these words:
y, The court shall also have turisdic-
ION over all cases brought to correct
my error OF law made by the commits
'lTh ' IN granung or refusing to grant
Loo Looks perfectly innocent. but here is
IN Nashville nlayIss enjoys transit rates that is.
,file, OF through shipments, and then
ater sending the goods on South at
ne same through rate, instead Of
atlanta. and Atlanta Complained. The
commission decided. as matter of
act, that this was a big discrimina tion
n favor OF Nashville, and that Atlanta
vas entitled also to the transit privi-
ege.
On appeal to the Commerce Court,
t held that this decision was a OJJES,
TON OF LAW, NOT OF FACTS. The
had always regarded that
is question OF FACT, as to which
So, IL such a proposition as this in the
case Is one of Law,
and II Congress gives the court power
10 correct all errors of law, then the
effect OF this legislation would be to
turn over the whole authority and dis
,retion of the commission to the court.
That is the nub of the whole business
The Broussard Bill.
The Broussard bill is different On
this point, 1t reads:
Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on
he Commerce Court, with right of ap-
peal to the Supreme Court, to examine.
and adjudicate cases or con-
In which the Interstate Com
has declined or refused to
grant. In whole or In part, the relief
claimed and sought .. and the
said court shall have power to set aside,
annul, or suspend any order of the
In whole or In part. en-
cred in any such proceeding and 10
iirect the commission to further pro-
,eed in said proceeding in accordance
with law and to enter such Judgment
order, and decree In the premises as
aw and justice AND THE<PARTICU-
LAIR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
said judgment, order and
decree to have the same force and
effect as is now provided by law for the
orders. and DEGREES of said
court"
This would completely wipe out the
ast vestige of the commissions au-
.hority. 1t would be able to do nothing
whatever which the Court of Commerce
could not review, alter. wipe out, or
would provide this broad review only
lad been deemed In whole or In part II
almost all cases for this broad review,
because the commission seldom grants
that the petitioner asks:
"a a. doaan't grant ALI. thar tks