164 OCTOBER'TFA?, 1907. Opinion of th? Court. 209 U.& the law, wit? a P�e fine and imprisonment staring him in the face if the act should be held valid. Take the p?msenger rate act, for instance: A sale of a single ticket above the price mentioned in that act might. subject the ticket agent to a charge of felony, and upon conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and imprisonment for five years. It:is true the com- pany might p?y the .fine, but the imprisonment the agent would have to suffer personally. It would not be wonderful if, under such circumstances, there would not be & crowd of agents offering to disobey the law. The wonder would be that a single agent should be found rely to take the risk. If, however, one should be found and the pmeecutor should ?lect to p.rpcced against him, the defense that the act w? invalid, because the rates established by it were too low, would require a long.and difficult e?,mln,?tion of quite com- plicated facts upon which the validity of the act depended. Such investigation it would be almost impossible to make before a jury, as such body could not intelligently p?es upon the matter. Questions of the oozt of transportation of pas- seng? and freight, the net earnln? of the road, the separation of the cost and enrnln? within the State from those arising beyond its boundaries, all depending upon the testimony of experts and the exs?nination of figures relating to these sub- jects, as well, poesibly, as the expenses attending the building and proper cost of the road, would necessarily form the chief matter of inquiry, and intelllg?nt answers. could only be given after a careful and prolonged examination of the whole evi- den ce, and the -?-?-g of calculations based thereon. All material evidence having been taken upon these issues, it has been held that it ought to be referred to the most com!?etant and reliable master to m?l?e all needed computations and to find therefrom the necessary facts upon which a judgment might be rendered that mlo?ht be reviewed by th? court. Ch?go &c. Rail?val? Co. v. To, plains, 176 U.S. 167. From all these considerations it is plain that this is not a proper suit for investigation by a jury. Su?ts for lmmlties, or in-
�
