Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-02-11
TIE EMERY LETTER.

eTHltl 1HlSI JUSTICE jsitleISs III Il
letter to Speaker Peters of the House
questions a provision in both of the
public utilities bills.
The proposition that any person dis
satisfied with any decision or order OF
the commission may appeal to the SUI
preme Judicial court to have such de-
oision or order vacated he considers
..unwise If not unconstitutional.
He states that the Constitution for
bids justice taking any eognizance OF
such questions, even though the Leg
islature shall undertake to impose that
duty upon them. Resides this ques-
ton of constitutionality he discovers
other serious objections. 1t would
greatly increase the labors of the
court, making for clogged dockets,
and thus delaying the relief sought
The letter follows:
Ellsworth, Feb. 4, 1918.
Dear Mr.. Speaker:
Thank you for the copies of the two
bills for the establishment of public
utilities commission for Maine. I be-
lieve in the principle of the bill and
that some legislation is advisable.
There is however in both bills pro-
AlSlQil Tue MlSupltl VI WHICH
question.
| understand it is proposed to con-
fer upon the commission the power to
determine, among other matters, what
shall be the rates or prices for the
service rendered to their customers by
persons and corporations engaged in
what is known as public service bust
ness under What regulations that bust
ness shall be conducted: what improve
ments and additions shall be made to
their plant: to what extent the ser
vice shall be made satisfactory to the
people served whether and upon what
terms one such person or corporation
may combine or merge with others
through purchase, or leasing, or other
wise; whether and to what extent such
person or corporation may issue stock
and bonds whether q franchise shall
be granted other parties to render SIM
liar service in field already occupied,
etc, etc. 1t is further proposed, as /
understand it, that any person being
dissatisfied with any decision or order
OF the commission may appeal to the
Supreme Judicial court to have such
decision or order vacated or modified
n the ground that it is unjust or un-
reasonable. Il is this latter PROPOSE
ton that I think dnwise, If not un-
constitutional. as imposing upon the
court non-judicial duties and conferr-
ing upon it non judicial powers. Per-
haps in other states, where the boun-
Diary lines between different depart
nlents of government are more or less
plant or uncertain, such an objection
would not have so much weight, but
| think it is entitled to serious consid-
GRAFTON in this State where the Con-
stitution not only forbids one depart
ment invading the field of another, but
explicitly inhibits any person belong
ing to one department exercising any
of the powers properly belonging to
either Of the others. The inhibition is
upon the members of the court per-
sonally as well as upon the body
Thus some years ago the Legislature
having conferred upon the railroad
commissioners the power of determin-
ing whether the public convenience
needed proposed street railroad, af.
terward undertook to authorize an ap-
peal from the commissioners to com.
mittee composed of three justices of the
COul L. AL lllC JQSllICo ltibaNo " az
as such a committee, mainly upon the
ground upon what the public conven.
fence needed, was a legislative ques-
ton over which they could not take
jurisdiction,
The judicial function in the last
analysis is simply to determine con.
! troversy as to past transactions, an6
to determine the then or present law
What should be: what shall be; whai
5est for the people or corporations
what the public service companies
should do to improve their service te
the people, are clearly not judicia
questions. They are questions to bt
determined by the Legislature, either
directly or through commissions OIL
other legislative agencies created fol
that purpose. No one would think i
proper to refer such questions to the
court in the first instance. VIII,
should it be done after the Legislative
power has decided them?
The Constitution forbids Justice:
taking any cognizance of such ques-
lions even though the Legislature shall
undertake to impose that duty upor
them. The courts cannot properly un.
dertake to determine whether an aci
of the Legislature within its powers
is unreasonable or unjust.
But apart from the question of con,
stitutionality | think there are other
weighty objections. Such right of APP
peal would greatly increase the labors
of the court. It's docket would b,
clogged with such appeals since Their
would be numerous cases in which
some person interested would be dis
satisfied with the decisions of tbs
Continued on Page Ten.)