Evening star., 1933-05-25
COURT CURB URGED
TO SPEED ACTION
ON UTILITY CASES
Commissions Pr0p0S
Would Slash Powers Ex-
cept on Legal Points.
LONG DELAYS BLAMED
ON APPEAL PROVISIONS
Report Prepared by William Rob
erts Cites Waits Ranging From
12 to 8 Years.

Copies of comprehensive report out
lining reasons for the proposed changes
in the public utilities act Of the District
which would strip the courts of power
to review orders of the Public Utilities
Commission with the lone exception OF
those involving legal questions eXclus-
lively, were distributed today to members
of the House District Committee.
The report was prepared by William
A. Roberts. special assistant corporation
counsel, and sent to the Capitol by the
commission at whose request Chairman
Norton of the House District Commit
tee introduced several days ago, a bill
providing for the proposed changes in
the utilities act
Aside from restricting court reviews
OF commission orders, the bill would
speed up decisions on cases taken into
court on an appeal
Roberts pointed out in the report that
the experience of the last 20 years has
shown that the present form of appel
Late procedure has resulted in undue
and unreasonable delays "and has not
Kept pace with the progress in admin
lStrative law as evidenced by the deci-
sionS Of the courts themselves, statutes
OF the United States and the several
States, and with current reformation OF
governmental processes"
Long Delays Cited.
He cited two cases taken into court
by District public utility corporations.
one OF which was IL years and 9
months in being decided, and the other
years and II months
1T Is submitted" Roberts declared,
that experience has shown that the
extremely difficult questions arising in
the regulation of public utilities are
best determined by reference to a
skilled commission acting under gen.
eral legislative mandate and selected
with regard for the importance of the
tasks involved. and equipped with an
organization of men technically skilled
IN engineering, accounting and other
functions of utility operation.
The efforts to reconcile this practical
solution Of the question with historical
reservations Of rights Of judicial review
based on the Constitution have resulted
IN substantial acquiescence by un-
pce]uolced students of the subject in
the necessity Of the following elements
IN an statutory appeal provision:
Il. That the finds of fact made bv
public utilities commission in con.
nection with the issuance of its orders
should have attached to them a con-
elusive presumption of correctness. if
based upon substantial evidence
2. That the commissions actions
should not be reversed by the judiciary
II the commission acted within its stat
utory jurisdiction and without impair
ment OF constitutional rights.
3. That all evidence should be
taken before the commission and that
the court Is entitled to the findings
OF the commission upon all evidence
presented by the parties in matter
subject to appeal.
Strict Limitation Urged.
a. That the function of the courts
should be limited to an affirmation of
the order of the commission or a re-
versal Of the order of the commits
sion. and that all quasi legislative
functions should be performed by the
commission, the judiciary exercising its
powers In a purely judicial manner.
IS. That orders formally issued by a
commission should be presumptively
correct and should remain in effect
pending reviews by the courts, unless
restrained or enjoined after serious con-
sideration by court Of not less than
three judges on strong showing OF
serious and irreparable invasion of con-
stitutional rights at a preliminary hear
ing.
''6. That administrative acts of the
commission, such as valuation of prop
erty independent of rate proceedings,
the supervision of accounts, and re-
quirement of information concerning
operations, should not be appealable.
~. That no appeal should be per-
mitted from an order of a commission
after the shortest possible reasonable
period for the preparation Of such an
appeal has elapsed. Sixty days would
normally be such an adequate period.
IS. That no appeal should be per-
mitted except upon final order issued
by the commission after application for
rehearing has been made and either
denied or the cause reconsidered.
''9. That appeal should be on the
record made before the commission, and
If the said record is defective, oppor-
tunity should be had by the court to
refer specific questions to the commits
sion for presentation Of evidence, con-
sideration and conclusions.
10. That costs of ligitation arising
from an appeal by utility should be
borne by the utility, and that the court
should have the right in its discretion
to require that such charges be borne
from the corporate funds of the utility
If the appeal is frivolous or solely for
purposes of delay"