Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1888-08-02
IOWA R. R. TROUBLE.
An Important Decision Rendered by
Judge Brewer, of the United
States Court.
The Injunction Against the IOw9 Com
missiOners Continued Point In
Favor OF the Roads.
neavenworth Kan, spocial.l


About three weeks ago the Northwestern
Railroad Company applied TO Judge
Brewer, of the Eighth Circuit, for an in
junction to restrain the Railroad Commits
sioners of Iowa from enforcing a schedule
of transportation rates which it had made
under the authority of the Iowa Legisla-
ture, on the grounds that the rates were
so low that they would bankrupt the road
and that the Legislature can not delegate
its power of fixing rates. A Temporary
injunction was granted and an explana-
tory hearing was had at Leavenworth,
Kan Judge Brewer has made a decision
which continues the temporary injunction.
The decision says:
The first question considered was this
Whether suit against the Railroad Commits
sioners to enjoin them from putting in force a
schedule OF rates was suit against the State
within the purview of the eleventh amendment
and therefore one OF which the Federal Court
could not. take jurisdiction. Chief Justice
Marshall had ruled that unless the State
was named as party it was not suit
against the State, but the Supreme Court
has adopted Il more liberal view and holds
that IT, although not named in the record
the st te is the real party in interest, and
against whom Judgment wi operate it is TO be
considered as IA suit against the State. Apply
ing this rule Judge Brewer holds that the State
is not party 10 this suit that it is not the real
party in inter- st. the one TO be affected by the
judgment and upon whom it W II operate, the
real parties being the rail- Dad companies on the
one side and the shippers on the other, and that
the State has only that remote int crest whicl
springs from the general welfare Of the people.
Tue next question considered was this: Can
tho Legislature delegate power to fix rates to a
railroad commission, no such mmission be
recognized by the Constitu ion? The Supreme
Court has held that the power to fix rates is a
legislative power, and IL IL generally true that
the Legislature cannCt delegate its powers 10
another body. Notwithstanding this Judge
Brewer declines TO hold that the delegation is
unconstitutional for several reasons, the prin-
cipal ones being these: An act will not be de-
clared unconstitutional unless clearly so. There
is no inherent vice in delegating such power TO
n commission, the vital question being with
both carrier and shipper that the rates pre-
scribed be fair and reasonable and not by what
body they shall be put in force. 1t is question
for the final determ ination Of the Supr me Court
of the State, and, therefore the Federal Courts
should OF anticipate its decision. Courts OF
sister States have sustained similar delegation
of power, and, therefore, there Is probability
that this will be sustained by the Supreme Court
OF Iowa.
The third principal question is whether the
Legislature has unlimited power in the matter
of liking rates either by It's own action or through
the agency of railroad commissioners, and this
question Is answered in the negative. Judge
Brewer holds that the Legislature clnno tx
rates 80 low as not to furnish some cOmpensa-
tion to the ra iroad company and revenues suf-
ficient to meet FIRST the cost of service second
| the fixed charges by way of interest and, third
something, however small, in the way OF dividend
| He further holds that while from the volume OF
| the testimony offered upon this application it
| il not clearly established that the schedule
prepared by the defendants will fail of p o
ducing compensation, yet there is a probability
| that it viii. and therefore preliminary inunc.
tion is appropriate until there can be full III
final inquiry in reference to the publication of
| He holds that, whatever might be the case as "a
the other railroad companies. the four companies
who had corresponded with the board have right
| to insist that no publication complete anC
no schedule in force at tn time the restraining
| order was served. Hence this complai ant is not
| late with 1t application and a preliminary in
junction is ordered.
The question not yet being settled that
the rates of the Commiss toner's are rea-
sonable in the sense that Judge Brewer
used the word the injunct on is continued
for further hearing on that point. 1t is
expected that sixty days at least will bc
required to furnish such testimony.