OCR Text |
Show RECALL OF COMMERCE COURT. A Representative of. Tennessee has a bill which ho intends to press at tho coming- session of Congress for the abolition of tho U. "S; Court of Commerce. Com-merce. This-'coprt has been in existence only since last winter; but it has been a very activo body. Its action has been offensive, it appears, to a good many of the interests involved; and the claim is made that tho Commerce Court has done altogether too much reversing re-versing of the- Interstate Commerce Commission, This is all the moro singular, since the former chairman of tho Interstate Commerce Commission was made tho presiding judge of1 the Commerce Court. One would naturally; have supposed, therefore, that his leaning, lean-ing, if ho had auy at all, would bo in favor of tho commission rather than against it. But it is complained iu the East and South that tho court lias been holding regularly against the rulings of the commission. No such complaint as that, however, is to be alleged against tho court so far as this Western country is concerned. con-cerned. This Commerce Court upheld the commission in Salt Lake. Spokane, and Reno railway cases, and it now, to clinch tho matter, upholds the validily of the long aud short haul provision in tho act passed by the final session of the Sixty-first Congress, establishing on a firmer basis the long and short haul regulation. The decision a,s reported re-ported on this point appears to bo absolutely abso-lutely conclusive, and to consider the-law the-law as a whole and not alone ,the declaration of tho fourth section of -the law. which coutains the long aud short haul feature, forbidding a greater charge for a short haul than for a longer haul, exqept wheru the Inter-stato Inter-stato Commerce Commission finds sulli-clout sulli-clout justification for departuro from this rule. It' 'is this proviso, it seems, which saves the validity of the law, iu the opinion of the court. One member of tho court dissents on a narrow construction con-struction of the statute. But tho decision de-cision of tho court completely covers the case, and affirms the law. The purpose of tho law establishing this Commerce Court was beneficial. It was mount to relievo tho other federal courts of a great mass of specialized work, and to hasten decisions on points in controversy. . There is no question but that the court has amply fulfilled the expectations based upon these promises, in spite of sectional complaints, com-plaints, and has dono its work both Hpecdily and well. Tho effort, therefore, there-fore, to recall the court by abolishing it, as provided in tho bill referred to, will probably fail, just as the reason urged for. the abolition of that court has already been confuted. The truth of the matter is, that it will be difficult' to sco how the country could get along without tho Commerce Com-merce Court now that it has bceu. established. It will take away from the U. S. Circuit Courts a Inrgc mass of special cases, and turn thoso cases over In the best law experts in the line of the controversies brought. Even if the reuson urged, the relief of the other courts of a great mass of litigation, were not sufficient, to require the C3tab. lishmeut and continuance of lhi3 court, tho fact that this court can givo speedy nnd expert specialized training and judgment to bear on tljis form of liti-gntion liti-gntion ought to bo enough lo justify the existence of the court, and to call for its continuance. |