Evening star., 1934-05-28
MULTIPLICATION
LIMITING URGED
Prettyman Files Brief With
Black Seeking Bills
Passage.

Strong arguments for enactment Of
the pending bill to limit the extent
of litigation over decisions by the
Public Utilities Commission to purely
judicial" reviews are made by Cor
poration Counsel E. Barrett Pretty
man in brief filed with Chairman
Black Of the House District Subcom-
mittee on Utilities.
The city official, in his statement,
released today, makes direct answer
to objections voiced by spokesmen for
local utility concerns. who contended
at a recent hearing on the bill that
the move was unconstitutional.
To Restrict Appeals.
The real objective of the measure
is to leave rate-making to the Public
Utilities Commission and to restrict
appeals to the courts generally to
matters Of law
All constitutional rights Of the con-
Germs subject to regulation by the
Utilities Commission, the corporation
counsel argues, would be protected
under terms of the pending measure.
Furthermore he insists, the United
States Supreme Court several times
has passed upon the question raised
by the utility concerns and has up
held similar limitations.
George P. Hoover of counsel for the
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone
Co., acting as spokesman for the util-
ity interests, contended the proposed
law was unconstitutional at the hear
ing before the Black committee.
Heretofore the review of orders OF
the Public Utilities Commission has
been an administrative review Cor
poration Counsel Prettyman states in
his reply. I'VE now deem it advisable
that this be changed to judicial re-
view, which, We assert, is the sole
right which the Constitution guaran-
tees in such cases. There Is no case
which holds any person is entitled as
a matter of right to an administrative
review of an order of a Public Util-
tiles Commission or other adminiStra-
tive body.
Rate making is a legislative func-
ton, delegated in this instance to the
Public Utilities Commission. The con-
stitutional limitations upon legislative
acts affecting property are that they
be not confiscatory, arbitrary or ca
PRECIOUS, and that they are arrived at
by due process of law.
The Supreme Court of the United
States has had this question of judi
cial review before it in numerous cases
and has uniformly upheld the suffl-
cheney of the relief afforded by a
purely judicial review" Prettyman
then cites several decisions on this
point.
The Public Utilities Commission
asked Congress to enact the bill to
correct the present practice. which in
some important cases has resulted in
the courts not only passing upon the
reasonableness of the acts of the COM
mission, but also in some instances in
establishing new rates and values
based on new evidence.
The constitutional rights Of the
utility concerns, Mr.. Prettyman in
formed the House committee, are
amply protected in that the bill en-
powers the District Supreme Court to
vacate an order by the commission
upon appeal if that order be uncon-
stitutional, whether conf1scatory or
otherwise not in conformity with due
process of law, or beyond the statutory
jurisdiction of the commission, or
promised upon findings of fact not
substantially supported by the evt-
dence.