St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-02-29
Judge Young Sustains the
Appeal From the Order OF
the Commission.
No Authority Given in the
Statute for the Fixing of
a Maximum.
The Order Declared Void on
the First Point Raised
The Second.
Grand Jury Gossip - The
Blaine Block Fire and
Other News.
FOR THE ROAD.
The Commission Beaten in Its
Case Against the Minneapolis n
st. Louis.

The Commission Beaten in Its
st. Louis.
A decision was fled yesterday in Min
neapoliS in the case of the appeal of the
Minneapolis 4 st. Louis Railway COM
pany from the order of the railroad and
warehouse commission. fixing the maxi
mum rate for switching ears, within the
city of Minneapolis, at 81 per car. The
court Judge Young holds that the or
der appealed from is not au-
thoriZed by the legislative act
under and by virtue of which it pur-
ports to have been made and is there
fore void. The points made by Judge
Springer, attorney for the appellants,
were: First. that the order issued by
the commission in regard to the
switching charges was not authorized
by the statutes under which ii was pur-
ported to have been made: and, second,
that the aforesaid order was void, as it
attempts to establish tariffs which were
in violation of the charter rights of the
appellants.
The court in its decision holds that
the following portion of Section of the
statute creating and defining the duties
of the railroad and warehouse COM
mission, contains all the author
ity that the commission has
for establishing rates, tariffs
and tolls for common carriers: Every
common carrier shall file with the com
mission. copies of its schedules of elias
siticationS, rates, ETC., and shall
promptly notify the commission of all
Il. cd 70 IA In h,,
same; and in cases where passengers
or freight pass over lines or
routes operated by more than one COM
mon carrier, and the several common
carriers operating such lines or routes
establish Joint schedules of rates. etc,
copies of such joint schedules shall also.
in like manner, be filed with the COM
mission. That in case the
commission shall at any time
find that any part of the tariffs of rates,
etc, so filed as hereinbefore provided.
are in any respect unequal or unreason-
able, it shall have the power, and is
pei such common carrier to change
the same, and adopt such rates.
etc, as the commission shall
declare to be equal and reasonable. TO
which end the commission shall, in
writing. inform such common carrier in
what respect such tariff of rates. etc.
are unequal and unreasonable. and shall
recommend what tariffs shall be Substi-
tuted therefor. In case such common
carrier shall neglect or refuse,
for ten days after such notice, to substi-
tute such tariff of rates, etc., or to adopt
the same as recommended by the COM
mission, it shall be the duty of said
commission to Immediately publish
such tariff of rates, etc. as they may de-
clare to be equal and reasonable, and
cause the same to be posted at all
the regular stations on the line of such
common carrier in the state. and there
after it shall be unlawful for such com
mon carrier TO charge or maintain
higher or lower rate or charge than so
fixed and published 10y the commission"
The court then says:
The functions of the commission in
the respect of unequal and unreasOna-
bic tariffs, charges, etc. are at first but
advisory. 1t is not authorized to make
arbitrary orders changing and fixing
rates, etc. The commission upon ascer-
tanning that the rates are umfavOrable
may recommend what tariffs shall be
substituted therefor and upon certain
statutory conditions such recommended
ton becomes invested with legal
force. The order appealed from is i'll
10 ScllSc Recommendations. Out III
terms an order arbitrarily directing and
determining what shall be done. 1t
cannot be considered the recommends
ing of a tariff of rates, but rather the
fixing of a maximum charge. The
statute contemplates that the rates, etc,
named in the recommendation shall
be as definite and certain as the
schedule required to be filled
by the company. The establishing of a
maximum rate implies that there may
be graduation of rates below such
maXimums. The order referred to
fixes no rates at all. but establishes only
maximum, leaving the carrier to
establish its own rates at any figure be-
low the maximum fixed. This is not
what is contemplated by this statute,
and the order must for such reason be
reScinded.'
In referring to the second point made
by the appellants that the order was in
violation of their charter rights, the
court said: Il do not consider it neces-
sary in this case to consider the consti-
tutional rights of the appellant secured
by its charter, as there has yet been no
attempted invasion of, or Interference
with such right by the legislature.''