St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-03-26
THOSE RAILROAD DECISIONS.

not take kindly to the decision rendered
in these Minnesota cases for the simple
reason that the law, as eXpounded by
the supreme court in this instance, is
inconsistent with all former decisions
of that tribunal, and is so radical and
sweeping in Its effect as to disturb all
that was supposed to have been settled
in the determination of the railroad
| problem.
While the full text of these decisions
has not been furnished to the press,
yet there is enough in the synopsis that
has been sent out to justify the belief
that the railroad side of the case re-
ceived undue prominence, while but
very little consideration was given to
the public interests. Whether this is
the fault of the judges themselves, who
leaned too strongly towards the railroads;
whether it is the fault of the attorneys
representing the state, who may have
failed to present to the court the real
points III issue; or whether it was the
result of collision between the railroads
and the state authorities in order to OBJ
tain a decision that would blast the
state railroad law, we cannot undertake
| to say. Nor do we assert that there was
intentional error, nor do we attempt to
lay the blame at any particular per-
sons door. But we do say that there
are evidences of grievous laundering,
and somebody is responsible for it.
This is apparent on the face of the rec
| ord.
The question uppermost in the minds
of those who are interested in continu-
| Ing the commission system is how to
| establish and conduct a judicial tribu-
nal in connection with the work of the
railway commission in order to duly OBJ
serve the processes of law in the matter
of fixing railroad charges. 1t would
puzzle Philadelphia lawyer to solve
| this question in a manner consistent
with the decision of the supreme court.
| We confess we see no feasible way of
doing it. The legislature under took to
| confer upon the railway commission
certain judicial powers in connection
with their legislative duties, but accord
ing to this decision these cannot be
properly exercised by the commission.
1t would be utterly impracticable, every
time the commission undertook to fix
or change rates, to refer the matter to
| the state courts for an observance of the
! processes of law, for in that case the
whole time and attention Of the state
judiciary would be taken up with rail-
road cases. 1t would be better, and yet
| not desirable thing to do, to establish
a separate judicial tribunal having sole
| jurisdiction of railway matters.
The objection to the plan of having
| the legislature fix a schedule Of rates is
that the conditions of commerce are too
flexible to be tied up by iron-bound stat
utes that can only be repealed or altered
every two years. For this reason most
of the states have preferred to adopt
the system of appointing commissioners
to supervise and regulate railway affairs.
1t was done as matter of accommoda-
ton to the railroads, as well as to meet
the varying requirements of fluctuat-
| ing trade. But as the railroads have
seen proper to present case in which
they secured division that seems to
knock the commission system out of
what follows. There is not that hostil-
| ity among the masses Of the people to
railroads that the corporation managers
imagine. They mistake for an inimical
feeling that which is in reality only an
assertion of rights.
There is good deal of twaddle in this
talk about vested rights, and about
property being taken without just co M
| pensation. The people have vested
rights, as we'll as the railroads; and it
more frequently occurs that the ship
pers and producers have their property
taken without just compensation, in the
way of eXtortionate railway charges,
than the railroad companies suffer losses
from accepting low rates. We take it
that the processes of law are, or ought
to be, the methods provided by law.
There is nothing clearer than that the
Minnesota railway law provides certain
and we'll defined methods by which rea-
sonable charges shall be fixed: and
by what process of reasoning the SUI
preme court arrived at any other con-
cIusion is one of those mysteries that no
fellow will ever find out.
But the decision has been rendered,
and there is no appeal from it. 1t will
stand until the court reverses itself,
which will probably follow in the pro-
cess of time. But, in the meantime, the
various states will have to reconstruct
their laws so as to conform to the prin-
ciples laid down in these decisions. We
have to bring order out of chaos; but
the people are usually capable of taking
care of emergencies, so we have no fears
for the result.