Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-08-26
S|LZER URGES
MOVE ON BILL
Sees Little Chance for Bach
araCh Measure Says His
Bill Would Pass

hu6s VI q
statement issued today Judge
George S. Silzer quotes from the
hearing on the Bacharach bill be-
fore the House committee. and con-
cludes therefrom that there is little
likelihood of that bill passing. but
that his bill, making available in
United States courts testimony taken
in rate cases before the Public
Utilities Commission. could be pass
ed and would. as Frank Sommers
said in the hearing. "be a very de-
cided step in advance"
The statement follows:
l am glad that MIR. Bacharach,
who has ar earnest desire to accom-
plish something, still has hopes that
his bill may go through. As the
Scotchman said. II haze ma doots."
The bill was introduced January
81, 1922, a hearing was had on
March 2S and the bill still anguish
es in the House of Representatives.
nee its passage is doubtful. let us
get something to relieve our people.
A friend has just sen me a copy
of the hearing and / find much
therein that is interesting.
There were two main objections
to the bill, (a) that it vas %unconsti-
tutional; and CD that it was unwise
to deprive the inferior United States
courts of jurisdiction. On the ques-
ton of dnconstitutionality there was
strong opposition at the hearing. ON
the question of taking jurisdiction
away from the inferior United States
courts, there was also strong oppo-
sition, and some of the things said
may interest the public. for in
stance:
Mr.. Reavis. docs this bill pro-
vide that eventually they might
reach the federal court?
Mr.. Bacharach. ut does"
Mr.. Reavis (interposing): as
there anything in this bill that pre-
ing OF anything provided in this bill
hat is ar absolute prohibition of
the federal jurisdiction ?"
Mr.. Bacharach. Il do not think
So"
Mr.. ReaviS. do you think that If
a litigant was compelled under legis-
lation of this character to go to all
the courts of the state, after which
he could go to all the courts in the
federal Jurisdiction, that he would
be pretty well exhausted before the
litigation was determined 2"
Mr.. Bacharach. Il would not
think so y y ="
Mr.. Reavis. IF the Federal
courts are to have jurisdiction after
the states + through, why not
give them jurisdiction in the first
instance?"
In a colloqy with Mr.. Sommer,
Congressman Graham said: Il want
IN fra nklv Ctotn p,u ,,isl NIT. tin
provides for taking away the power
to review a situation wherein an in
vasion of a constitutional right Is al
legged =. In the meantime
might not a corporation be wrecked
in the hands of a receiver by the
enforcement of the order. and woulc
there be any possible remedy to saw,
1t under these circumstances
III you take away from the sub
ordinate courts the power to enforce
those constitutional rights and leave
1t only to The state courts
you are taking away q forum tina,
ought to be provided in the fedora
system with the power to determine
the question of the constitutionalitS
Of the act which the State Commits
sion may have performed or omit.
ted"
So that it clearly stands out that
even If the Bacharach bill is passed
there will still be an opportunity to
&c to the United States Supreme
Court; all that the bill does is to de
prive the inferior court Of such
! jurisdiction.
There Is a suggestion that my bill
may serve to defeat the Bacharach
bill. 1t seems already defeated. MY
bill would save all that the Bachar-
ach bill could accomplish.
Here is what Mr.. Frank II. Som
mer said 1t the hearing or this
point:
Mr.. Sommer-"Here is the condi-
ton. We spent two years before the
regulatory commission IN taking ties
timony as to value This IS the rec
ord that goes UP through the courts
of the state-the companies had OPP
portunity to prove anything they
wanted to. We do not have to make
a. new record. The courts of the
state review that record. In the fed
eral courts. however. we must start
anew going to the tremendous cost
of introducing a new testimony as to
the value of the property"
Mr.. Graham-"Would not that be
relieved against If some provision
was made by the court for utilizing
that? 1t is a question Of evidence
and procedure, not a question of
law"
Mr.. Sommer-"That might be
possible under provision Authorizing
the use OF these records. if made
| upon hearing upon notice and that
would be a very decided step in adj
vance of the present situation, and
it might save t."
Any one who reads MI SOmmer's
learned discussion before the com
mittee will realize what II means
when Mr.. Sommer says that the sit
uation may be saved in this way. I
agree with him. and my hin accom-
plishes Just that result. Why not
save it instead of losing everything,
as nov seems probable? If Mr..
B~acharach finds that he cannot
overcome the opposition which has
prevented the passage of his bill for
seven months. perhaps he can get