Existing law, providing for a review of a decision of the commission, does not by its terms enlarge the subject of equitable jurisdiction. The provision of the statute confers upon the court the right to take jurisdiction of a case against the commission and to review its decision when based upon an existing rate. There is no provision of the statute that contemplates the exercise of a jurisdiction by the courts in a case arising under a provision of law similar to the amendment sought to the sixth section of the act of June 29, 1906. In the decision rendered by the commission denying the right to advance the rate, the question of the reasonableness of the former rate or of any existing rate is not involved in the order to be entered by the commission. Under this proposed amendment the carrier submits a proposition to advance the rate, which has never become effective. The order of the commission would simply approve the proposition or deny the advance of the rate. This, under the proposed amendment, would be the extent of the authority and act of the commission. In the case of McChord _v._ L. & N. R. R. Co. (183 U. S., 483), followed by the case of L. & N. R. R. Co. _v._ Ky. (183 U. S., 503), the court sustains the doctrine announced, and held that before a court of equity can intervene, the administrative body must do some act that advances beyond the legislative function. (Reagan _v._ Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S., 362; Interstate Commerce Commission _v._ Railway Co., 167 U. S., 479.) It is contended that the decision of the commission prohibiting the advance is a legislative act, and that under the decisions of the courts the order simply prohibiting the taking effect of a proposed advance could not be the subject of equitable cognizance. If this view is not correct, it is contended that the courts by overruling the order of the commission would in effect be putting in force a future rate. Under existing law, however, if the rate has taken effect its reasonableness is a matter of judicial review, and should the commission after protest and hearing declare it to be an unreasonable rate and set the same aside in its order, that decision is reviewable by the courts, as it presents a judicial question. The statute conferring upon the commission the power to determine whether an existing rate is reasonable or unreasonable has fixed the standard which must determine the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, and the courts have a right to review the act of the commission, with a view of ascertaining whether it has acted within the limitations of the power conferred upon it. In the case of the State Corporation Commission of Virginia against Railways, decided by Mr. Justice Holmes November 30, 1908, speaking of the power of the commission to fix a rate and the appeal from its decision to the court of appeals of Virginia, the court said: