Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/341

FEDERAL CONTROL OF INTRASTATE RAILROAD RATES 305 But the act does not confide to the President — as doubtless it might have done — the final determination of the reasonableness of rates, etc. It proceeds to define with some elaboration in the third and fourth paragraphs of section 10 the method of review which the shipper or traveler who deems himself aggrieved may- invoke, in order that it may be determined whether the rates, etc., conform to the standard prescribed, i. e., whether they are "rea- sonable and just." And the method of review prescribed is limited to proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission. There is no implication — even the most remote — that rates, etc., ini- tiated by the President may be reviewed by state commissions because they happen to cover transportation wholly within a state. This silence is eloquent, and an examination of the various pro- visions of the law, as well as of general legal principles apphcable, leads to a single conclusion, viz., that such state commissions are not entitled to assert any authority with respect to such rates. And first with respect to the provisions of the act. It is to be noted that the second paragraph of section 10 provides that rates, etc., initiated by the President "shall not be suspended by the [Interstate Commerce] Commission pending final determination'* as to their reasonableness and justness. Now, as is well known, many state conmiissions have the power to suspend intrastate rates, etc., pending an inquiry as to their reasonableness, etc., and no express prohibition is foimd in section 10, or any other part of the act, against such suspension. But is it conceivable that Con- gress meant to permit a state commission to exercise with respect to rates, etc., initiated by the President an authority denied the Interstate Commerce Commission? The power of suspension is well understood and its importance is difficult to exaggerate. Apart from the inherent improbabihty that Congress would have subjected rates, etc., initiated by the President to a greater degree of control on the part of the state commissions than on the part of the Interstate Commerce Com- mission, it must be remembered that there are also the practical considerations against implying the power resulting from the fact that the exercise of such power by a state would not only impede the federal government in its effort to establish a proper scale of rates, etc., in order to derive adequate revenue from the operation