This case simply illustrates the fact that the court was unwilling to decide the question finally until the rate contested had become effective. This was a suit involving a schedule of rates, and the question made by the record was that these rates would result in the confiscation of the property of the complainant in violation of the Federal Constitution. Where that question can be properly made, the courts have intervened upon clear proof and sustained their jurisdiction to prevent such a violation of the constitutional protection. In this case, although the court held that the evidence developed the fact that this allegation of the bill was not sustained, it was so reluctant to give effect to testimony as to what might be the effect of the rates before they were made operative that it preserved the rights of the parties by authorizing a new suit after the rate should become effective. Under the act to regulate commerce, such a constitutional question could hardly be practically raised, and the rights of the court to intervene must depend upon the limit placed upon the power of the commission by Congress in the enactment of the law, in fixing the standard which should guide the commission in its action. BURDEN IMPOSED ON THE COMMISSION.--CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.--HOW RATES ARE MADE. 5. Your committee has deemed it proper that it should report to the Senate the legal objections to the incorporation of this amendment in the sixth section of the act of the 29th of June, 1906, but although giving due weight to these objections, the committee has been more strongly influenced in its adverse report upon this bill because of the strong and forcible practical objections which have been urged to the adoption of this amendment as a part of the interstate commerce law. Should this amendment become a part of the law, it would be in the power of any shipper, whether interested or not in the result, to file a protest against the advance of the rate which under the proposed amendment would at once suspend its going into effect, and under the amendment offered in committee would place it in the power of the commission to order its suspension, if a prima facie case was presented in the protest. The shipper in filing a protest assumes no responsibility, either as to the effect of his action upon the carrier or liability in any way for cost accruing during the proceeding. Considering the thousands of articles transported by the carriers of the country, the hundreds of thousands of rates published for the transportation of these articles, and the thousands of shippers interested in their movement, some idea of the number of protests that probably would be filed on the advance of rates can be imagined. The burden that would be thrown upon the commission in its effort to meet this responsibility would, as Judge Cooley well remarked, require "superhuman" efforts on its part. He said: