Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-06-08
DEALS COURT BLOW
Supreme Court Rule May Mean
End of Commerce Tribunal.
REvERSES ITS DECISIONS
Standing Of Legislation to Abolish
Body Now Matter of Conjecture.
PUTS LIMIT ON AUTHORITY
Opinion of Justice White Rules
Against Destruction of Method
of Regulation.
REvERSEs ITS DECISIONS
PUTS LIMIT ON AUTHORITY


preme Court. handed down yesterday. re-
versing the rulings of the new Commerce
Court. will have upon the legislation pro-
posed for the abolition of the Commerce
Court was matter of much conjecture
at the Capitol today. Senator Poindexter
OF Washington yesterday afternoon in
troduced resolution in the Senate to
discharge the committee on commerce of
the Senate from further consideration Of
the bill to abolish the Commerce Court
In order to bring the measure before the
Senate for a vote. No action on his res
olution was taken, however. 1t is believed
that the enemies of the court will make
every effort to bring about its abolition.
The decisions of the Supreme Court
completely cut the ground from under
the rulings Of the new court The SUI
preme Court held that to adopt the views
of the Commerce Court as to its juris-
diction would be to overthrow the system
of rate regulation adopted by Congress.
The Supreme Court upheld the exclusive
jurisdiction of the interstate commerce
commission over the administrative ma
chinery of the federal rate laws.
Entire Court Sustains Decision.
Chief Justice White. in the so-called
Granddaughter case, handed down the
principal decision. This decision was sus-
tanned by the entire court. In substance.
he held that the Commerce Court was
not to substitute it's judgment for the
interstate commerce commission in the
administration Of the rate laws. The
specific point ruled upon was that par
ties who failed to get relief before the in
fQrctQtn
right to go into the Commerce Court and
have that court pass upon the facts to
ascertain if they should have been grant
ed relief.
tice White. however. went further. He
showed that the Commerce Court was not
given new and strange powers, but
succeeded to the powers of the circuit
courts in existence when the Commerce
Court was created, and that the Com
merce Court was limited in reviewing the
commissions orders 20 questions of law.
In cases yet to be passed upon. 1t is
claimed that the Commerce Court went
out Of the domain of law and gave its
judgment on pure questions Of fact.
Questions Authority of Court.
Chief Justice White stated the question
for decision to be whether the authority
of the Commerce Court was confined to
K,
might be, affirmative orders of the COM
mission. or whether it had the power to
exert its own judgment by original inter
probation OF the administrative features
of the act to regulate commerce and upon
that assumption to treat a refusal of the
commission to grant relief as an affirma-
tive order and accordingly pass upon its
correctness.
Both from the words of the act Great
ing the Commerce Court and from the
general scheme of rate regulat ton. the
Chief Justice said 1t was to be seen that
the Commerce Court had no such broad
powers as it claimed to possess.
1T cannot be disputed said Chief JUS
tice White, that the act creating the
Commerce Court was intended to be but
a part Of an existing system for the reg
uation Of interstate commerce and that
the making of 1t a part of that system
was not intended to destroy the existing
machinery or method of regulation, but
to cause 1t to be more efficient by pro-
viding a more harmonious means for Sc
curing the judicial enforcement of the
act to regulate commerce"
Standing of the Commission.
Chief Justice White declared that Con-
gress had created the interstate commerce
commission as uasi-judicial body to
enforce the laws in order that there
might be unity Of regulation and that
from 1887 to 1910 it has not been even
seriously asserted that, as to subjects
which in their nature were administra-
tive. power lay in the courts to exercise
original jurisdiction, or to enforce their
conceptions as to the meaning of the act
by dealing directly with the subject. ir-
respective of any prior affirmative action
by the commission.
Originally. he said, the courts felt a
duty to pass on both questions of law and
of fact, but by 1910 1t has come to pass
that in considering orders of the COM
mission the courts were limited to deter
mining whether the orders of the COM
mission violated the Constitution, con-
formed to statutory authority. or whether
power had been SO arbitrarily exercised
by the commission as virtually to tran
scend the authority conferred, although 1t
might not technically be doing SO. 1t was
this Jurisdiction, he declared, the Com
merce Court had inherited.