Graham guardian., 1912-04-05
COMMERCIAL COURT
Corporation Commission Fa.
vors Adjustment of
this Court

In q full statement, issued by the
Arizona Corporation Commission, it
sets forth the reasons for its approv-
al of the effort now being made to
abolish the Commerce Court.
Among Arizonans, who are familiar
with the manner in which the Com
merce Court has thwarted the ef-
forts of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. will approve their
stand. The Arizona commission s
statement is as follows:
The Corporation Commission Of
Arizona respectfully asks it's Honor
able Senators and Representatives
in Congress to support the Sims bill,
now pending in the lower house. or
any other effective measure looking
to the abolition of the Commerce
Court. We would also suggest that
an amendment to the Interstate
Commerce Act as will make decis-
ions of the Interstate Commerce
Commission renewable only by the
Supreme Court, would tend to ex-
pedite the adjudication Of tariffs
and transportation controversies.
We are of the opinion that early
action will be found desirable by
the several states. which will pro-
vide that cases arising under cor
poration commission, railroad COM
mission and public service law shall
take precedence over other civil
cases in the Federal Court.
Jurisdiction of the Commerce
Court being confined wholly to ap-
peals from the decision of the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, it fol-
lows that this court is unnecessary,
inasmuch as the Interstate Commerce
Commission will appeal their rever-
sails to the Supreme Court, thus un-
necessary delaying settlements and
such delays being against the COM
mon good.
We respectfully invite your atten-
ton to the last annual report of the
Interstate Commerce Commission,
reviewing the work of the Commits
sion.
The first session of the Commerce
Court was held February Is. 1911.
There were transferred from various
Circuit Courts to the Commerce
Court upon its organization, thirty
six cases, and there have been filed
with the Commerce Court, twenty
one cases. Of the total number,
fifty-four cases, one was brought by
the Commission itself to enforce its
order; nine were rought by shippers,
claiming that the orders of the Com
mission did not grant proper and
lawful relief; and forty-four were
suits brought by carriers to enjoin
the Commissions orders. 1t will be
seen by the report of the Commits
sion that many cases of vital interest
to Arizona and the West, decided,
by the Commission in favor Of the
shippers, have been enjoined or re.
versed by the Commerce Court and
by the Commission appealed to the
Supreme Court. Among these cases
is the inter- Mountain Commodity
Rate Case, the Maricopa County
Commercial Club. complainant; the
Los Angeles-San Francisco Switching
Charge Case, of direct and material
interest to the shippers Of Tucson,
who are subjected to an arbitrary
switching charge and who have a
case before,tne Interstate Commerce
Commission; the Los Angeles Lemon
Rate Case, Of interest to the citrus
belts of Arizona, and others where
the principles involved are generally
of interest. The more important
cases reversed or enjoined by the
Commerce Court have been appealed
to the Supreme Court; and without
expressing any opinion as to the
merits of the different orders and
opinions expressed by the Court
and Commission, we are of the opin-
ion that the Commerce Court is an
unnecessary tribunal, being, in ef-
feet. second commission; that de-
cisions of the Commission should be
carried direct to the Supreme Court
and there take precedence over 9TH
er civil cases. 1t will be noted in
Section Three of the Act to Create
the Commerce Court, that the pend
ency of suit brought to enjoin, set
aside, annul or suspend any order
of the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion shall not OF itself stay or sus-
pend the operation of any order of
the Commission, but the Commerce
Court, in its discretion, may restrain
or suspend the operation of the
C)mmiss:on's order, pending final
determination A review Of the
work Of the Court shows that said
Court has used its discretion very
broadly in favor of carriers in sus-
pending orders of the Commission,
thus robbing the shippers of the
benefits of the appeal. If carriers ac-
complished nothing else except de-
lays, it follows that they profit large
|y through the delays and this en-.
Unnecessary litigation.
In our opinion, orders of the
Commission should become effective
and remain in effect until final de.
is made hy the Sunreme