The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1913-01-14
COMMERCE COMMISSION
AND COMMERCE COURT

The primary question which must be
answered by the advocates OF the abo-
lition Of the Commerce Court is whether
II is desirable to permit the railroad to
select any court il pleases, instead of
compelling it to litigate in a single court
which has the power Of review only as
to questions of law, and whose de-
cisions are Of course subject to review
by the Supreme Court of the United
States. One obvious benefit which has
accrued from the establishment of the
Commerce Court is that the Judges have
been enabled to devote themselves to
study OF this branch of the law and
are thus creating what may be called
an expert tribunal for its Interpretation
Most OF the questions arising under the
Interstate Commerce act are novel, and
depend on intricate problems OF railroad
management. In passing on these the
various circuit judges either had to spend
great amount of time mastering the
different practices and customs involved
or else decide the cases without a
thorough knowledge OF railroading. The
Commerce Court, being continually con-
fronted with such problems, can mas
ter them once and for all and use the
experience so acquired in future cases.
The presiding Judge Of the Commerce
Court is admitted to be the best author
ity in the country on railroad Questions.
The expert knowledge necessarily ac-
quired by such a court Is especially iu-
portant in cases involving temporary in
functions asked for by railroads to re-
strain the operation of the orders OF
the commission. In such cases there
is frequently no time for extensive study,
evidence or investigation, and the more
thoroughly the judge understands be-
forehand the nature of the problem pre-
scented, the better he will be able to rem
der a proper decision. That some court
must pass on and sift out these ques-
tions prior to the hearing in the Su-
preme Court is unanimously agreed What
possible advantage can accrue to any
Of the parties interested in having this
task delegated TO the tribunals least
fitted for its efficient exercise, no one
has Yet offered to explain
As the Attorney General of the United
States points out in his annual report.
much of the criticism that has been
directed against the Commerce Court is
due TO the fact that the scope OF judicial
review over the orders of the Interstate
Commerce Commission has not yet been
clearly defined by act of Congress or
by authoritative decisions of the Su-
preme Court - He adds the very inn
portant recommendation that the act
be amended so as to provide that the
Commerce Court shall have Jurisdiction
to review all errors of law (as distin-
guished from questions of facp in
respect to orders of the commission
which deny relief to shippers or any
other parties entitled 10 apply to IT. to
the same extent as they now have juris-
diction to set aside orders granting re-
lief. The practical result OF the pres
ent situation is that the shippers have,
as rule. no relief against errors of law
on the part of the commission. and that
such relief is substantially limited to
the railroads. The Supreme Court, inter-
preting the law as it stands has said
that there is no power vested in the
Commerce Court-there was no power
vested in the Circuit Court-to annul
a negative order Of the commission. The
only power of annulment given to any
court is to annul an Affirmative order
of the commission. Herein there Is an
obvious denial of justice to the shipper
who may bring a claim and ask the
commission TO compel the railroads TO
do something. only TO be told that he
has no case and no other means OF
redress.