The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1890-03-29
THE MINNESOTA RAILROAD GASES

tue SupeTuClul ToauSI may scctu W
attack tie Missouri railroad law.
The opinion referred TO was rem
dered In tho case Of tho Minneapolis
Eastern Railway Company va. the
Railroad andW Warehouse Commission of
Minnesota and St. Paul Railway Com
pany va. the same.
sin the first cas- the commission,
without a hearing, made mn order tx
ing 81 per car, whether loaded or un-
loaded. as the maximum amount which
tho company would be allowed to
charge for hauling and switching cara
in Minneapolis, the railroads rate being
81 rs for empty and 81 so for loaded
cars. The railroad maintained that its
rate was not unusual or unreasonable
and that the price fixed by the commits
sion was inadequate and unreasonable
compensation aud set forth the facts In
regard to Its property earnings and x
penses in support of its statement. The
action of the commissioners, II con
tended, would deprive the company OF
it's property without due process Of law
an / was therefore in violation OF The
fourteenth article of the constitution.
ain the second case the commission
ixsd "a cents per gallon in ten gallon
cans as q just and reasonable compen-
satiop tor the transportation Of milk
from Owatoune or Faribaalt to st Paul
or Minneapolis, the former being sew
euty-one aud the latter being fity-s six
miles from Minneapolis. The railroad
refused TO comply with the commits
-iun's order aud commended that the
same rate for both distances was IN
reasonable aud contrary to the statute
of Minnesota forbiudding the giving OF
al unequal or unreasonable preference
or advance 10 any particular locality,
that the power TO tx and establish rates
belonged 10 the Legislature and could
not be delegated TO the commission;
aud furthermore. that the commission's
| action was unconstitutloD for the
reasons stated in the first case In that II
| deprived the company OF its property
| without due process Of law.
"The decision OF tbs supreme court
of Minnesota was against the railroads
| aud the case Was taken up or appeal.
| The court reversed the Judgment
though there was q strong minority In
favor of the state. The ground taken
| by the court was that, az tho decision
OF tho commission was final and as
there was NJ provision for a Judicial
determination Of the r~easonableness Of
the rates fixed, il amounted 20 taking
the property OF the company without
due process OF law and was therefore
unconstitutional.
"Justice Blatchford delivered the
opinion OF the court and Justice Brad
ley delivered e dissenting opinion in
behalf OF himself, Justice Gray and
Justice Lamar. Justice Miller Concurred
in the conclusion reached BY the court
but did not tglly approve the o~nlnioD
rendered.
"Justice B~latchiord, delivering the
| opinion Of the court, says that this
court must accep: the construction put
upon the statute by the Supreme cour,
| of Minnesota. That conrt authorita
lively declares that it is the espresso
intention OF tho Legislature That thu
rates 1xed by The railroad commission
are not simply advisory, but final aud
conclusive as TO what ara equal ard
reasonable railroad charges: that tie
law neither cOntemplates nor allow .
any Issue to be made or inquiry so b'
made az I their equality o r. reasonable
mesa in fact. IL O;her words, although
the railroad company il GGrbidden to
establish rates that are not equal anh
reasonable, there is 30 power in he
courts 10 stay the hands Of the Gommi-.
sion il IL chooses 10 establish rates that
are unequal and unreasonable. Thi
beiug the construction of the statute b,
which The court IL bound in considering
the case, Il 10 Of the opinion that, +,
construed, il conflicts with ms cCnsIi
tuition OF the United States In the par
ucuIsrs complained OF by the r%aiIroa'
company. 1t deprivPs company o
Us right to a judicial investigation by
J due process Of law and substitutes