The Washington herald., 1912-07-26
SEE THREAT FOR
/ c. c. IN b|E[s
Allege Conspiracy to Nullify the
Hepburn Act by House
Democrats.
MEASURES DESIGNED TO
BROADEN REVIEW POWERS
Commissioner Clements Says the
House Might as Well Abolish
the Tribunal.

force OF the Interstate Commerce law,
said TO be fostered by the Lumber Trust
and other big combines that operate what
are known as tap line railroads. has
provoked dissension among the Demo-
cratic leaders OF the House. This So
called conspiracy. according to officials
OF the Interstate Commerce Commission,
finds expression in bills designed 10
broaden the power Of review by the
courts over orders issued by the COM
mission.
1t Is the opinion Of Judson C. Clements.
a member Of the commission, that IL
any OF these bills are enacted into law
that the commission might Just as well
be abolished. Mr.. Clements takes the
position that IL broad powers of review
are conferred on the courts. there is no
use for an administrative body like the
commission.
The bills In controversy were intro
Guced in the House by Representatives
Borland of Missouri. Broussard of Louis
lana, and Saunders Of Virginia. Demo-
Gratis. They propose that, in errors OF
law. aggrieved shippers may appeal TO
the courts. This right is now denied.
officials OF the commission insist that II
any one of the pending measures is put
into the form of a statute the chaotic
conditions in interstate commerce that
obtained prior to the passage of the
Hepburn bill in 1896 will be restored.
This will result. they insist. in breaking
the force Of the rate act, and end in
hopeless confusion.
Controversy in House.
Controversy has broken out among the
House Democrats over the Borland.
Broussard, and Saunders bills. Repre-
sentative AdamsOn. chairman OF the
House Interstate Commerce Committee,
said yesterday that II any OF the meas
ures were enacted Congress should COM
plete the job by abolishing the Interstate
Commerce Commission. He gave il as
his opinion that the power OF the courts
In passing on orders Of the commits
sion should not be enlarged. and that
II this power was enlarged that It would
render Ineffective the system OF regulat-
ing interstate commerce that had been
built up after years of legislation by
Congress and Interpretation of law by the
Supreme Court.
The trouble over this proposed legisla-
tion has been accentuated by the action
Of the House Judiciary Committee In re-
porting the Borland bill. Members of
the Interstate Commerce Committee
threaten to take the matter up on the
floor and TO move that the Borland bill
he referred to the Interstate Commerce
Committee.
The Borland bill provides that the
courts shall have jurisdiction over all
cases brought 10 correct any error OF
law made by the Interstate Commerce
Commission in granting or refusing 70
grant relief in any proceeding before
said commission" Officials Of the COM
mission contend that this proposed
amendment would result in interminaole
delay in the adjudication OF rate cases,
and practically render abortive any at
tempt on the part of the commission TO
correct abuses in interstate commerce.
They declare that while the measure
appears 10 be framed in behalf OF the
shipper that IL Is really designed TO take
the teeth out of the rate act, and pri-
uartly TO serve the interests of big cor
porations that own railroads that con-
meet with common carriers In this con-
nection they mention the Lumber Trust
as an interested party.
To Safeguard All Interests.
In making his protests to the Interstate
Commerce Committee against the pending
bills. Mr. Clements stated that Congress
in enacting the Hepburn bill of Eo6 at
tempted to narrow the court review OF the
commission orders in a manner that
would safeguord the interests or all par
ties He pointed out that later. in l9!o,
when Congress created the Commerce
Court care was taken that the power CT
review should not be enlarged. Mr.. Glenn
ents said, in part: 1T has been the con-
tention of the commission ever since the
Commerce Court was created that that
court was not given authority TO review
the decisions of the commission on mat
ters and conclusions of fact or or mixed
law and fact in such a way that 1t should
substitute its judgment for that OF the
commission in regard TO the amount OF
rate or as to a discrimination. whether
due or undue
Judge Clements argued that the Su-
preme Court decisions limiting the power
of the lower courts to jurisdiction In
commission cases over pure errors of law
had resulted in a uniform and workable
system of orders governing commerce be-
tween the States. To grant the power OF
broad review to the court, he contended,
would be to lodge in the court work Of
administration that could only properly
be delegated by Congress to an admins
trative body like the commission.
IF that principle is right" he said,
there would appear to be no reason why
the controversy should not 20 into the
court in the first instance and not have
the delay incident to the trifiing with 1t
by an intermediate tribunal such as the
commission II the matter Is determinable
only by judicial process 1t might as well
go to the court in the beginning"
In a letter addressed to Chairman
Adamson. of the Interstate Commerce
Committee, Attorney General Wicker
sham expressed sympathy with the pur-
pose of shippers who desire that the
law shall be amended so that shippers
may appeal to the courts from orders of
the commission. In another letter the
Attorney General gave mis- approval to
proposed amendment, authorizing the
commission, in advance of the issuance
of an order. to call on the court for an
opinion on a question of law. This lat
ter amendment will not be opposed by
the commission. But the Borland bill.
wh!cn provides for an appeal on an err
ror Of law. is Objectionable TO the com
mission officers for the reasons given
by Judge Clements. They contend that
the line between fact and law in many
cases is so thinly marked that the pro-
posed amendment would in effect give
the court Jurisdiction over fact as we'll
as law.