New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-27
THE T4V or RAILROADS.

THE Law or RAILROADS.
The decision by the Supreme Court III the
Granger cases is one of the greatest Importance
Rarely has that court been called upon 10 oe
tcrminc issues involving a larger amount OF
nrivate property, or directly affecting the llsh'S
of q greater number OF merchants. Shippers anu
nroduccrs The question at issue III these cases
micbt almost Ire stated thus: " DO the rail-
roads in This country belong to the States, or TO
their owners: are they required TO transport
for the public benefit exclusively, or in part Tor
the benefit of the people who have invested
money in thcm?" While the action OF the
Minnesota Railroad Commission. which the SUI
nrcmc Court was called upon to review. did not
absolutely confScate property or render II en-
tilcy valuclcSS. yet the principles uhueIlH'nS
that action if logically carried ont by Il Legs
laturc or by State commission acting uh'er
legislative authority. would practically leave
the railroads, without any power to earn dlVl-
dcnds for their owners, excepting Wheh iar'h
els and other shippers are satisfied with thcif
condition and with the remuneration OF thcr
labor and services.
|, is not essential in connection with TINS
noint TO consider in detail the precise orders
reviewed by the Supreme Court. Inc queS-
ton is not 50 much whether those ordofS were
inst or unjust as whether COMMISSION create"
by legislative authority had final power to dc-
eide whether rates made were Just or UNJUST
The principles involved in the legislation ny
Minnesota. and ly other Granger states as
we'll were at issue before the court rather thah
the precise application of those principles. oh
bebalf Of the supporters of State regulation OF
railroads. il was claimed that the state had
final mower TO decide whether the rates made
hv diferent companies were reasonable or Just
and that the decision of commission charged
with authority by the Legislature could not
lo reviewed or questioned in the courts. The
decision OF the supreme Court on the contrary
i in effect simply this. that the Legislature
has no hight 10 take the property OF COMPANY
without due process of law, and that II Lcgi>-
lat,ue. or a commission created ny Le3iS-
ature. has final authority TO decide whether
rates are OF are not reasonable. and II the com
ranv affected has no opportunity to appear 10
Tho con1ts for redress. the Legislature may
take the plOperiy Of the company without que
process Of law.
Jnsticc Blatchford in delivering the OPINION
Of the court. cites the construction put upon
the state statutes 10y the supreme Court o.
Minnesota. which has auihorltaiiyely declared
that il was the express intention OF the Legs
latura that the rates fixed Try the railroad Com
mission shOuld be final and conclusive. and that
the law neither contompatc> nor permits any
! iuauirv a 10 their equity on Ica>onablcn'NS
In comment. Justice BlatchfoId says: " Al
thouob the railroad company i forbidden to
establish rules that are not equal and reason
:. in = Il
hands OF the commission II it chooses 10 c>tah-
| li>h rates that are unequal ana unreaSohablc'
This conflicts with the Constitution OF the
United States. and deprivcS the company OF rs
| ,icht 10 a judicial investigation by due process
Of law. . II the company is dcpfN'd %
the power Of charging reasonable rates lor the
use of lis property, and such deprivation takes
| place in the absence OF an investigation ny Ju-
| dieial machinery. il i deprived OF Lawful use
Of IFS property and thus. in substance ana
effect. Of the property ITSELF Justice Miller,
Of Iowa. concurred in the judgment OF the
court with some hcsitalon and was OF opinion
that either the Legislature or commission
appcintod by il had the right to establish rates
He appcars 10 have held that, where rates 50
| fixed are unjust either 10 the company or to
the public a right Of appeal to the n'tcd
States courts exists Justice Bradley. for him
self. and Justices Gray and Lamar dssentcd
vigorously from the decision Of the court. ana
held that the adjustment OF rates was legs
lativc and not a judicial plerogatlvc.
There is force in the statement BY the MINOR
ity Of the court tina, the decision thus rem
dorcd ovcrrucS. at least in a measure. previous
decisions by the same court regarding the reg
ulativc power Of the Legislature. BIT 1t ha'
been glavcy doubted for years past whether
the tendency of judicial decisions has not been
TOO far on the side Of absolute control OF tho
property Of corporations by state Legislatures
Investor; have felt, not without reason. thai
these decisions have gone far toward dcprylnl
them Of virtual ownership or practical use o
their property, and toward comforting upoT
Legislatures and through them upon the pub
lie. the virtual ownership and practical use o
such property The new decision by the cour
indicates a decided movement in the opposite
direction. and is likely to be of great influence
in checking unreasonable action by state Legs
laturcs and State commissions.
.