Evening star., 1928-09-30
By GREGORY HANKIN.

TINE new term of the Supreme
Court of the United States will
open on Monday October l.
4 During this term it is expect
ed the court will finally catch
up with its docket. This does not mean
that when the court adjourns next June
it will have disposed of all cases dock =.
eted. 1t means that it will probably
dispose of all petitions filed more than
month before the close of the term
and of all appeals filed more than three
months before the closing.
When the court adjourned last June.
100 cases were carried over for the new
term. OF these A were petitions to
review the decisions of lower courts
1856 cases which are to be argued and
10 cases in which arguments have been
heard and which are ready for final
decision. The Summer months brought
a large number of additional cases and
there are now about $50 cases docketed.
They deal with every branch of Federal
law, and among them are many cases
of outstanding national Importance.
Probably the most important case
ready for decision is the Chicago Diver
sion Case, controversy involving IL
States over the question whether the
sanitary district of Chicago has right
to divert water from Lake Michigan.
The States bordering the Great Lakes.
viz. New York. Michigan. Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania,
claim that the diversion results in low
ering the water level of the Great Lakes
and their tributaries. thus injuring the
commerce. navigation and many other
interests of these States. The States
along the Mississippi. viz. Kentucky,
Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas. in
tervened as defendants in the case.
arguing that the diversion was duly
authorized by the Secretary of War as
an aid to navigation. To this the COM
planning States answered that Congress
never intended to delegate such powers
to the Secretary of War or to authorize
such obstruction to navigation.
New York Subway Case.
The first case to be argued at the
opening of the new term is the Inter-
borough Rapid Transit case. In which
the Federal District Court enjoined the
City of New York and its Transit Com
mission from prohibiting or interfer-
ing with the Interborough's new
schedule of 7-cent. fares. Toward the
close of the last term, the Supreme
Court did the extraordinary thing of
overriding the discretion of the lower
court and staying the injunction. From
| the legal standpoint the case resolves
| itself into the question whether the
Public Service Commission law of New
York superseded the Rapid Transit act
from which the city derived its au-
thority to lease its SubwayS to the In
| terborough under an agreement that
| the company shall operate on a scent
| fare basis for the period of 49 years.
This question. under what circum-
stances public utilities may charge rates
in excess of those provided for in their
| original franchises, is one of growing
| national importance During the last
| term the Supreme Court held that the
| Telephone and Telegraph Co. of Seat
| tie, Wash. was entitled to charge rea-
sonable rates in excess of those pre-
scribed in the franchise. because the
Department of Public Works of the
State had abrogated the franchise
agreements and had taken over juris-
| fact that in previous years 1t permitted
the company to charge rates greater
than those provided in the franchise.
A similar question is now pending
before the court with reference to the
| Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. In this
| case, a taxpayer brought suit to enjoin
| the company from charging fare in
excess of cents. claiming that the
greater rate established by the Public
Service Commission was in abrogation
of contract and therefore unconstitu-
tional. Another case came from Colo
| RADIO. in which the Circuit Court of
| Appeals for the eighth circuit deter
mined that the Denver Tramway Co.
| had a right to charge rates lin excess
of those prescribed because prior ordi-
,arnoc ttrndar Hr;I1iah tha raiIUcU nroP.
ated were void.
O'FallOn Railway Cases.
The O'Fallon Railway cases involve
the question. among others, whether the
Interstate Commerce Commission pro-
ceeded upon proper theories in comput-
| ing their valuation. Heretofore the Su-
preme Court has held that the valuation
orders of the commission are not sub
| ject to judicial review. for the reason
| that these are not orders in the sense
that they require the railroads to do or
to refrain from doing some specific act,
but are merely findings Of fact or con-
cluSionS of investigation. The court
has held in effect that while it is within
it's province to review the quasi-legis-
lative or quasi-judicial functions of the
commission. 1t is not within its province
to review the commissions inveStigatory
functions. In previous cases. however.
the valuation orders of the commission
were attacked as such. In refusing to
review those orders the court indicated
that If and when the valuation orders
are put into execution-as, for example.
in issuing rate or recapture orders
then the railroads would be in a posi-
ton to urge that the valuations set by
the commission were incorrect and
should be set aside. In the. O'Fallon
Railway cases the attack on the valua-
ton is made in conjunction with re-
capture orders promulgated by the COM
mission. 1t is possible. however. that
the court may decide these cases with
out entering into the question of valua-
tion. II it holds that the commission
was right in regarding the st. Louis &
O'Fallon Railway Co. and the Manufac-
turers' Railway Co. as two separate lines
and not as constituting single railway
system.
Lake Cargo Case.
Several Southern railroads reduced
their tariff schedules on transportation
of coal from southern West Virginia.
western Virginia. eastern Tennessee and
Kentucky to the Great Lake ports for
transShipment by vessels The reduce
ton was 20 cents per ton, so that the
rate differences on Lake cargo coal be-
tween those districts and the Pitts
burgh, Ohio (Sl, and Cambridge dis
tricts were reduced from Is cents to 25
cents per ton of coal. The Interstate
Commerce Commission ordered cam
collation. of this reduction. and the
United States Statutory District Court
in West Virginia held the commissions
order invalid
The order of the Interstate Commerce
Commission reducing the rates on trans
continental shipments of fruits from
California to Eastern points is attacked