Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-02

ooeS not mean however. that all the
orders issued by the interstate commerce
commission are brought before the Com
merce Court. as about 30 per cent are
compiled with because there is no ground
for questioning them. These cases
likewise coming under the act to regulate
commerce. were largely responsible for
| the establishment of the court.
The February docket of the Commerce
Court contains twenty odd cases. For
instance, in the case of the Denver and
Rio Grande Railroad Company the aues-
ton involved is whether or not the inter
state commerce commissions order eS-
charged between Salt Lake City, and
near vicinity, and the Missouri river.
| Mississippi river and Chicago territory is
valid Another case is that of the At
Gibson. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway
Company. and other roads. against the
Arlington Heights Fruit Company and
others. in which the railroads endeav-
oring to have set aside the Interstate
commerce commissions order reducing
from $50 to $50 per car the charge for
fruits are proceeded and pre-iced 10y the
shipper. The February session of the
court commences the 10Th of the month.
Interesting sidelights on the Commerce
Court are contained in the opinions OF
some of the federal Judges. At the time
the hearing on the Commerce Court was
going on before Senate committee state
ments from many of these Judges were
bench toward the court.
According to Judge Jacob Triever of
Little Rock. Ark. the jurisdiction now
vested in the Commerce Court should not
be returned to the district court" Fur
thermore. he is of the opinion that the
jurisdiction Of the court should be eX
tended. Practically the same opinion is
held by Judge John f. Mccall of Mem
phls. Tenn. One of the principal reasons
why these two judges favor the continu-
ance of the Commerce Court is the crowd
ed condition of their own dockets, which,
they claim. prevents the proper amount
of time necessary to Il satisfactory con
Sideration of those cases now under the
jurisdiction of the Commerce Court.
Two other judges, George w. Ray of
Norwich. \. Y. and Arthur l.. San
born of Madison, Wis, on
Opinions the other hand. state
of r,a, that their dockets are
Va S"u6oS' now so crowded that the
cases now tried by the Commerce Court
could not he heard. However, Judge Ray
says. Il am in favor of the Commerce
Court, as | think better work will be done
if these matters are left to one court
with abundance of time at its disposal
Judge Sanborn also approves of the court
and advocates giving it broader powers.
In the entire list of judges whose opin-
ions We're asked only one replied as being
against the Commerce Court, and he for
obvious reasons requested that his name
be omitted. His opinion was the Com
merce Court should be abolished because
all special courts created for the elucida-
ton of a single statute or the considera-
ton of one narrow range of cases are
wrong I'm principle. l. even venture to
think that Mr.. Tafts adherence to his
opposed theory in insisting the Gre
alton of the Commerce Court and the
Court of Customs Appeals seriously di-
minished his reputation lawyer
among other lawyers of experience. All
their Importance.
Two addresses made by President Taft
in connection with the Commerce Court
interesting because they show his
views before and after the creation of the
court. March Is, 1910, he made speech
outlining his ideas for'the proposed court
and went on to say that IF there is a
thing that diSgraces our civilization to-
day. it is the delays in criminal and civil
justice. 1t always works in favor of the
man with the longest purse. It always
works in favor. therefore, of the railroad
as against the shipper and the public.
And, therefore, if we can get a court
whose knowledge of the sub ect is such
as to enable it to dispose of cases that
come before it. quickly and with uni
very long step forward in that regulation
be necessary.