The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-04-01
The Granger Cases.

The recent decision OF the tied Sta.es
supreme urt il what ara Iown as the
Granger cases continues TO be the subject o;
a good dell of comment. The cases reached
the court on Appeals from the supreme court
of Nj me ;ota. The gu sstion at issue in
them was this: Has the legislature
OF a state any right to say that
there shall be no appeal from
the rates of transportation on railroads
which it, OF a commission acting under its
authority, fxesl The Minnesota railroad
commission fixed certain railroad freight
rates in that state which were much below
those fixed by the railroads, anI which,
the railroads ALLEGED, permitted the n no
margin of profit whatever. Tas railroads
went into court, and the Minnesota supreme
court said that there was no app sal from
the action of the railroad com mission
that is, the commission, being the agent
of the legislature, could do waat it pleased
in the matter of rates, aud that the courts
had no authority to inquire vine sher the
rates it fixed were reasonable or not.
The United States supreme court reversed
the decision of the Minnesota supreme
court. 1t held that tine rates fixed by the
railroad commission were not final and con-
elusive, and that the legislature could not
say that there should be no appeal from
rates that il, or its commission,
might fix. The railroad companies
are forbidden to establish rates
that are unequal aud unreasonable,
and if they disregard the prohibition there
is way provided for calling them to ac-
count, but if the railroad commission fixes
rates that are unequal sad unreasonable
there is no way according to the Minnesota
supreme court, for the railroads to get the
justice to which they are entitled.
The United States supreme court held
that the decision of the Minnesota supreme
court was unconstitutional because it de-
prived the railroads of the right to judi
cial investigation by due process of law.
The meaning of the Minnesota decision was
that the state has the right to confiscate the
property of the railroad companies since
the denial to the companies of the right to
charge living rates amounted, virtually,
to confiscation- The United States SUI
prene court held that the railroads have
tuo AiSub W LILO COuIJS Wubu IuSJ
believe that the rates fixed by the railroad
commission are unequal and unreasonable
Mr.. Justice Blatchford, in the course Of his
decision. said; eff railroad company is de-
prived of the power of charging reasonable
rates for the use of its property, and such
deprivation takes place in the absence of an
investigation by judicial machinery, it is
deprived of lawful use of its property aud,
thus in substance and effect, of tho property
itself.n
In response to popular demand railroad
commissions not unfrequently adopt rates
that are clearly unjust to the railroads.
This decision in the Granger cases has been
accepted by the railroads as opening the
way for them to escape the tyranny of such
commissions As matter of fact, too
many Of the commissioners are not capable
OF determining what are reasonable rates.
Being Ignorant they act arbitrarily. The
railroads are private property and SHOULD
be permitted to charge reasonable rates. 1t
is undoubtedly difficult, however, to find
out what rates are reasonable.