direct. (Sec. 16.) Moreover, by the same section of the Revised Statutes of the United. States, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is limited to cases where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars.

When we come to examine the method of proceeding in the Circuit Court, as provided for by Section 16, of this Act, it will be found still more anomalous, because the Circuit Court. is directed to proceed to hear and determine the matter speedily as a court of equity, and without formal pleadings and proceedings applicable to ordinary suits in equity, but in such manner as to do justice in the premises.. (Sec. 16.)

No provision is made for the defendant to answer the petition, but that right may be inferred, perhaps, from the general language of the section.

The Circuit Court is also given the power "if it think fit, to direct and prosecute in such mode, and by such persons as it may appoint,. all such enquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judgment in the matter of such petition." (Sec. 16.)

Exactly what this language means is difficult to infer, and it is still more difficult to infer

what the powers would be of the persons appointed by the Circuit Court.

There is, however, a studious neglect in the law to set forth the steps or defences which the common carriers may interpose to the petition and judgment prayed for; but, on the other hand, it is declared that in all judicial proceedings in the Circuit Court the findings of facts are to "be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found" by the Commission (Sec. 14), and on a hearing in the Circuit Court, provided for under Section 16, "the report of said commission shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated."

The Act is also deficient in not providing for the power of adjournments, and the right to examine absent witnesses, or witnesses de bene esse; but, without undertaking to specifically enumerate them, it is sufficient for the purposes of this work to state that many of the attributes of ordinary common-law actions, and suits in equity, are left to inference; and if they are exercised by the Commissioners at all, must be regarded as conferred upon them by the general language of the Act.

There is no limit to the time within which proceedings may be begun against the common.

carriers under this Act, and a complaint may be instituted whenever the Commission, or any person, or firm, or corporation, or body politic sees fit to formulate it, no matter what period of time may have intervened between the alleged infraction and the commencement of the proceedings.

Finally, it is difficult to decide whether the Circuit Court acts in the premises as a court of appeal, or whether the proceedings in that tribunal are to be regarded as begun de novo, and of an original character.

If the proceedings in the Circuit Court are regarded as of an appellate character, then the Act makes no provision whatever for an appeal on the part of the common carrier from the decrees, or judgments, or orders of the Commission, and the only method open to the common carrier of bringing the matter before the Circuit Court is to resist the acts of the Commission, to place itself in contempt, and thus force the Commission to invoke the aid of the Circuit Court. But suppose the Circuit Court does not agree with the conclusions, or judgments, or orders of the Commission, it has apparently no power to modify or alter such decree or order, and no power to formulate

a new judgment or decree-if the facts warrant it.

These, and many other practical difficulties, stand in the way of an enforcement of the law through the aid of the Circuit Court.

Fourth It only remains to suggest the various constitutional propositions which arise from a consideration of the language and results and consequences of the Inter-State Commerce Act.

(a) The first and main question is: Has Congress the right to pass this law? Do the fixing of the rates, fares, and charges which common carriers may receive for the transportation of passengers or property, and the appointment of this Commission, with the powers conferred upon it, as contained in the Act, constitute a regulation of commerce? Does regulation mean control of commerce? Does it mean the absolute and unlimited power on the part of Congress to do any act with or concerning the commerce of the country that to it seems proper? Is there no limit placed upon the power of Congress in this respect? Is Congress the sole judge as to what facts constitute a regulation of commerce? Has Congress power to regulate any private commercial business conducted between two

more States, in the manner in which it has attempted to legislate about common carriers? And does the fact that such carriers are quasi public officials create any distinction as against such carriers?

If it can be demonstrated to the Federal courts that the effect of the legislation in question is hurtful to the people of the country; that it is aimed at the subversion or destruction of commerce, can the Act be declared unconstitutional?

These are the interesting questions which surround this branch of the subject, and must be answered in order to sustain this piece of legislation. On the other hand, we have the utterances of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Wabash Railway Company case, and in the decisions there alluded to by Mr. Justice Miller, in which it is generally stated and held that Congress possesses the power to legislate upon the subject of inter-State commerce. There is nothing, however, in that opinion which upholds the right of Congress to delegate its power to a Commission, and this, as we have said in the beginning of this treatise, is an entirely new question for the courts to determine. (118 U. S., 557.)