The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-12
ARGUE QUESTION
OF JURISDICTION
Conflict Overshadows Other
Rate-Making Problems Be-
fore Supreme Court,

Washington, January lI.-Tho un-
the new Commerce Court and the In
terstatc Commerce Commission to-day
overshadowcd other intricate problems
OF governmental rate making con-
sidered by tn, Suprme Court of the
! United states.
| The tense situation existing In
F! Washington was shown by tho fact
! that ostensibly over Il question or
f; class rates between Cincinnati and
Chattanooga upon Il single road. the
Cincinnati. New Orleans and Texas
Pacific. there appeared to address the
court not Only attorneys for tho rail-
way and tho shippers interests, but
inc legal representatives OF the In
tersta,e Commerce Commission and
the Department OF Justice. The case
was the iirst from the Commerce
Court to reach the Suprme Court
The court itself was the first to sug-
Eest question shout the jurisdiction
Of the Commerce Court. Francis B.
James, representing Cincinnati ship
pers was detailing to the court an
account of how the shippers had fail
ed to get reduction of the seventy
SIX cent schedule of rates over tho
Cincinnati. cw Orleans and Texas
Pacific to sixty cent basis. He told
now the commission reduced the
schedule to seventy cents and then
how the shippers appealed to the Com
merce Court to annul the commission
order. Justice Vandevcnter inquired
about the power OF the Commerce
Court to review the refusal of the
commission to grant relief to n ship.
per.
Mr.. James replied that the act Gre
aung the Commerce Court opened that
court to the shipper as we'll as to the
railroad.
Assistant Attorney General Denn,-
son then addressed the court, and the
Jurisdiction of the Commerce Court
came squarely in Issue.
In narrow. literal view" said Mr.,
pennlson. these words of the statute
creating the Commerce Court, any
order of the commission which the
Commerce Court has Jurisdiction to-
annul or set aaide, might be consider
cd to apply even to negative orders
such as those denying relief or dis
missing complaints. but the context
and the spirit and purpose OF tho act
show that such could not have been
the intention"
Mr. Dennison pointed out that in the
case before the court the Commerce
Court had decided 1t had jurIsdict ion
over orders OF the commission denying
relief to shippers. but held that tho
order affecting rates between Cincln-
natl and Chattanooga was not to be
disturbed.
IF the Commerce Court had conclud
cd" said Mr.. Dennison. "as urged by
the shippers that the 7o-cent schedule
was excessive, and that 6o-cent
schedule was proper. Il could hnvo
done nothing to accomplish any result.
1t could only announce It's opinion.
IF 1t had taken that view and on
tered an order annulling and setting
aside the order OF the commission,
the sole direct effect would have been
the opposite to it's DESIRE because by
wiping out the order of reduction to
10 cents it would have accomplished
nothing but the reinstatement OF the
former 76-cent schedule. which the
commission, az we'll as the court and
the shippers would have agreed to be
excessive. 1t would have been in
creasinS the error 1t was criticizIng. 1t
seems hardly reasonable to suppose
that Congress, II 1t had intended to
give the Commerce Court this juris-
diction, would thus have left the court
without any means OF bringing itself
to bear upon the issue"
Solicitor P. ]. Farrell, Of the Inter.
state Commerce Commission, spoke
along the same line. In addition, he
replied to Mr.. James's argument that
the commission allowed the Cincin-
natl and New Orleans and Texas Pa
ciflc to earn "A per cent. net profit In
order that the Louisville and Nashville
with number of unprohtabIe
branches. might have reasonable
rate. Mr.. Farrell declared it was we'll
within the powers of the commission
in making rate to take into consider
alton all the circumstances. and as
serted that II was not limited to con-
ditions on bee line railroad between
two cities.
r. Watson Moore spoke for the Gin
cinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pnciac