This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...weight." In the Import Rates case it declared, with reference to the conclusions "reached by the Commission, or by the courts below, in respect to what were proper rates," that "That was a question of fact, and if the inquiry had been conducted on a proper basis we should not have felt inclined to review conclusions so ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...weight." In the Import Rates case it declared, with reference to the conclusions "reached by the Commission, or by the courts below, in respect to what were proper rates," that "That was a question of fact, and if the inquiry had been conducted on a proper basis we should not have felt inclined to review conclusions so reached." The Commission has so conducted its work that in one of the latest cases decided, the Kearney case, the Circuit Court was fully justified in stating that the Commission had failed to make any finding of fact which would sustain its order. EVADING ITS DUTY. The Interstate Commerce Commission has persistently shirked its legal duty to investigate minutely the facts pertaining to cases brought before it. It has preferred to attempt to enforce fantastic interpretations of the law. Thus has it created whatever sentiment exists in favor of radical legislation by demanding that the law be made to mean what it erroneously declared it did mean. In the Behlmer case (175 U. S. 6481, the Supreme Court spoke of the Commission as follows: "That body, from the nature of its organization and the duties imposed upon it by the statute, is peculiarly competent to pass upon questions of fact of the character here arising." The foregoing was quoted by the Supreme Court in deciding the Chattanooga case (181 U. S., 1), and the court asserted that it had "steadily refused to exert its original judgment upon the facti, where, under the statute, it was entitled, before approaching the facts, to the aid which must necessarily be afforded by the previous enlightened judgment of the Commission upon such subjects." In the Georgia Commission cases (181 U. S., 29) the Supreme Court found that the Commission had "po...
Read Less
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
Poor. Ex-Library Usual ex-library features. Title page has a repaired tear and last page is torn away from staples. Pages are slightly darkened with age, otherwise the interior is clean and tight. The book is bound in a hard cardboard type library binding. Cover is discolored and edge worn. One corner is torn away. Library labels on the front. 191 pages.
