Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-02-19
Hearing on Bill to Regulate
Their Authority Becomes
Technical Debate.
LEGAL PHYSIOLOGY
CREATES CONTROVERSY
Disagreement Centers Around Elk.
tent of Review by Tribunals to
Be Permitted Under Move.

With the Public Utilities Commits
sion and the utility companies still far
apart on the powers that should be left
to the local courts in passing on utility
cases, the Senate District committee
will face the task of settling the differ
ences when 1t meets again, within a
week, to act on the court amendment
bill.
The two-hour hearing before the
committee yesterday afternoon became
debate over legal phraseology, having
to do principally with the question of
the extent to which the court should be
permitted to review evidence on
which the commission bases findings.
The bill provides that when appeals
are taken to the court from decisions
OF the commission, "the findings of the
commission as to the facts upon which
such order or decision is based shall be
conclusive, II such findings are sup
ported by evidence and If such order
or decision is not confiscatory"
Controversy Arises Over "The."
A spirited controversy developed at
the hearing as to what would be the
effect Of inserting the word 1.-THE" in
front of evidence" in the proposed
amendment.
Some members of the committee and
counsel for the companies took the view
that the bill in its present form would
mean that II the court found any evi-
dence, no. matter how inconsequential,
to support the commissions findings, it
would make the commissions findings
as to facts conclusive.
Harleigh Hartman, member of the
Utilities Commission, vigorously de-
Tended the bill as submitted. He said
the purpose was to prevent the court
from substituting its judgment for that
OF the commission. It would conf1ne
the court to questions of law, except in
cases involving constitutional questions.
Mr.. Hartman testified that one effect
OF the bill as advocated by the COM
mission would be to prevent a valua-
ton case from being reviewed by the
court until 1t reached the stage where
contiscatioa could be alleged by the
/ utility.
Phone Counsel Gives Views.
George P. Hoover, counsel for the
Chesapeake 81 Potomac Telephone Co.
and the Washington Rapid Transit Co.,
told the Senators the utility companies
nave no objection to taking from the
local courts the legislative power they
possess to promulgate an order they
nnu the commission should have is
sued, but he declared the pending bill
goes beyond that and takes from the
companies the right to have a judicial
review of actions Of the Commission.
Mr.. Hoover said the measure would
relegate the companies to the right of
judicial review only where confisca-
ton was involved, but not on the ground
OF the unreasonableness of commission
order.
Counsel for the companies and the
commission also disagreed as to what
the laws of the States provide with re-
gard to court review of facts produced
by commission
Samuel r. Bowen, attorney for the
washington Railway & Electric Co,
also outlined detailed objections To the
bill, expressing the belief disinterested
lawyer would hold that the measure
taxes away due process of law.
E. G. Riegel of the Washington Con-
sumers' Guild opposed the pendinz biz.
Chairman Capper presided, arsf. the
following committee members ter part
In the discussion Senators Glass of
Virginia, Blease Of South Carolina
Robson of Kentucky. Kean of New
Jersey and Blaine Of Wisconsin.