Mr. Mann. On the question of the review of the action of the Com-
mission by the court, suppose we enact a law providing a method of
review as set out in the law, is it your judgment that the companies
affected would be obliged to follow that method or would they have
the right to file the ordinary bill in equity asking for an injunction on
the ground that the rates complained of were in violation of the Con-
stitution of the United States?



PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF INTERSTATE-COMMERCE LAW. 207



Mr. Htnes. I have not given that question mature consideration,
because it has not before been presented to me. My offhand suggestion
is that the courts would be inclined to say that the provision I'or review
in the law was conclusive.
Mr. Richardson. Has not the Supreme Court of the United
States, in reference to where such commissions placed a rate too high
or so high that there was not a fair profit on the property of the rail-
road or its investments, and so forth— the equipment, and so forth—
invariably held where such a rate as that was iixed that it was confis-
catory and that they would set it aside (

Mr. HiNEs. The only cases that have arisen that the Supreme Court
has passed upon are cases where the rates iixed by the State commission
did not yield enough to pay operating expenses.
Mr. Richardson. Well?.
Mr. HiNES. Now, how far the court would go in determining what
margin of profit would be allowed is of course speculative. They say
that a fair margin of profit ought to be allowed.
