upr000283 174

\ unreasonable there was no jurisdiction to make the order. Interstate Commerce Commission'v. Northern P. R. Co. 216 U. S. 554, 54 L. ed. 609, 30 Sup. Ct. Hep. 417. In a case like the present the courts will not review the Commission’s conclusions of fact (In-terstate Commerce - Commission,v. Belaware, L. & W. R. ?• 2^1, ^5 e^. 456? 392 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. ) bypassing upon the credibility of witnesses or conflicts^in the testimony. But the legal effect of evidence is a question of law. A finding without evidence is beyond the power of the Commission. 'An order based thereon is contrary to law, and must, in l&^Suage of the statute, be ’set aside by a'court of competent jurisdiction,’ 36 Stat, at L. 551, chap. 309. 5 H . The government further'Insists that the commerce act (26 Stat. at L. 743, chap. 12S, U. S. Comp, Sat. 1901, p. 3163) requires the Commission to obtain information necessary to enable it to per­form the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created; and having been given legislative' power to make rates'it can act, as could Congress, on such information, and therefore its findings must be presumed to have been supported by such information, even though not formally proved at the hearing. But such a construction would nullify the right to a hear­ing, — for manifestly there is no hearing when the party does not know what evidence is offered or con­sidered, and is not given an opportunity to test, ex­plain, £or refute. The information gathered under the provisions of paragraph 12 may be used as basis for instituting prosecutions for violations of the law, and for amny other purposes, but is not available, as such, in cases where the party is entitled to a hearing. The Commission is an administrative body and, even where it acts in a quasi judicial capacity, is not limited by the strict rules, as to the admissibility of evidence, which prevail in suits between private parties.' Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 48 L. ed. $60, 24 Sup, Ct. Rep. 563. But the more liberal the practice in admitting tes­timony, the more imperative the obligation to preserve the essential rules of evidence by which rights are asserted or defended. In such cases the Commissioners cannot act upon their own information, as could jurors in primitive days. All parties must be fully'apprised of the evidence submitted or to be considered, and must be given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to inspect documents, and to offer evidence in expla­nation or rebuttal. In no other way can a party -20-