Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/441

 Latest Important Cases Commerce Court. — Jurisdiction — Court without Power to Perform Administrative Func tions — Cannot Grant Relief in Absence of Affirmative Action by Interstate Commerce Com mission. U. S. In Proctor & Gamble Company v. U. S. et al., the Supreme Court, in an opinion filed June 7, held that the Commerce Court, under the act of Congress by which it was created, had merely the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts and could not, therefore, entertain a petition from an order of the Interstate Com merce Commission which directed no affirmative relief. The complainant, believing the demurrage rates on its own private tank cars unjust, prayed that the railroads be enjoined from collecting them. The Interstate Commerce Commission issued an order denying relief, and the complainant then filed a petition, to which the Commission demurred on the ground that the application could not be entertained as no affirmative relief had been granted in the order. The Commerce Court held that it had juris diction, but dismissed the application on the merits. The Supreme Court overruled the Commerce Court, holding that under the first section of the Act of June 18, 1910, now section 207 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1911, 36 Stats. 1148, the Commerce Court was given only the jurisdiction then possessed by the Circuit Courts in certain specific cases men tioned in the act. When the act was passed, it was well settled that in considering the subject of orders of the Commission, for the purpose of enforcing or restraining their enforcement, the courts were confined "by statutory operation to determining whether there had been viola tions of the Constitution, a want of conformity to statutory authority, or of ascertaining whether power had been so arbitrarily exercised as virtually to transcend the authority con ferred." But the courts had no power to inter fere with the performance by the Commission of its administrative functions, while acting within the scope of its authority; in other words, as to subjects which in their nature are administrative and within the competence of the Commission to decide, the court was with out the power "by an exercise of original action to enforce its conceptions as to the meaning of the Act to Regulate Commerce by dealing

directly with the subject, irrespective of any prior affirmative command or action" by the Commission. Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court. On the strength of the Proctor & Gamble case the court held that the Commerce Court was wrong in taking jurisdiction over the complaint of Cincinnati shippers about rates which the commission had put into force over the Cincin nati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. Both cases had been a basis for criticism of the Commerce Court. The Cincinnati-Chattanooga decision marked the end of the fight of Cincin nati shippers for lower rates to Chattanooga. The Supreme Court also reversed the Com merce Court's decision which would have allowed railroads to carry railraod fuel coal at lower rates than commercial coal. The Inter state Commerce Commission again was upheld. The Commerce Court had enjoined the Com mission from prohibiting the Baltimore & Ohio, the Pennsylvania and other railroads from allowing reduced rates for the transportation of coal owned by other railroads. Mr. Justice McKenna handed down this decision. The United States Supreme Court held June 11 that the Commerce Court had power to enjoin temporarily an affirmative order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in order to review it, and therefore sent the Federal Sugar Refining Company's lighterage case back to the Commerce Court for further determina tion. The case was begun before the Interstate Commerce Commission by the Federal Sugar Refining Company. The Commission had held that there was an unjust discrimination in not giving the company the same allowance for lighterage as that given to the Arbuckle Brothers, but the Commerce Court issued a temporary injunction against the Commission's enforcing its order. Conspiracy. Federal Jurisdiction — Construc tive Presence of Alleged Conspirators. U. S. Prosecution of offenders against federal law was given a tremendous impetus June 11 by the Supreme Court of the United States hold ing that conspiracy to violate federal laws could be punished in any state where an overt act was done to further that conspiracy. Mr. Justice McKenna laid down the doctrine, which