Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/190

 164 OCTOBER'TFA, 1907. Opinion of th Court. 209 U.& the law, wit a P�e fine and imprisonment staring him in the face if the act should be held valid. Take the pmsenger rate act, for instance: A sale of a single ticket above the price mentioned in that act might. subject the ticket agent to a charge of felony, and upon conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and imprisonment for five years. It:is true the com- pany might py the .fine, but the imprisonment the agent would have to suffer personally. It would not be wonderful if, under such circumstances, there would not be & crowd of agents offering to disobey the law. The wonder would be that a single agent should be found rely to take the risk. If, however, one should be found and the pmeecutor should lect to p.rpcced against him, the defense that the act w invalid, because the rates established by it were too low, would require a long.and difficult e,mln,tion of quite com- plicated facts upon which the validity of the act depended. Such investigation it would be almost impossible to make before a jury, as such body could not intelligently pes upon the matter. Questions of the oozt of transportation of pas- seng and freight, the net earnln? of the road, the separation of the cost and enrnln within the State from those arising beyond its boundaries, all depending upon the testimony of experts and the exsnination of figures relating to these sub- jects, as well, poesibly, as the expenses attending the building and proper cost of the road, would necessarily form the chief matter of inquiry, and intelllgnt answers. could only be given after a careful and prolonged examination of the whole evi- den ce, and the ---g of calculations based thereon. All material evidence having been taken upon these issues, it has been held that it ought to be referred to the most com!etant and reliable master to mle all needed computations and to find therefrom the necessary facts upon which a judgment might be rendered that mloht be reviewed by th court. Chgo &c. Railval Co. v. To, plains, 176 U.S. 167. From all these considerations it is plain that this is not a proper suit for investigation by a jury. Suts for lmmlties, or in-

�