St. Paul daily globe., 1890-10-02
The Supreme Court Stands by
the State Railroad Com
missioners.
Upper Berths of Sleeping Cars
UnSold Must Remain
Closed.
No Appeal Lies to District
Court From the Railroad
Commissioners,
So Far as the General Opera
tion Of a Railroad Is e
Concerned.

The Minneapolis & st. Louis Railway
company was very severely sat upon by
the judges of the supreme court yester-
day, who handed down decision refus-
ing the company the right to appeal
from an order of the railroad COM
missioners. The railroad company
secured an order in the district court
reversing the order of the commission
ers, who took the matter to the appeal
court. with the result that the railroad
company is defeated. The opinion filed
reads:
The act fch. 10, laws 1887, regulating
common carriers and creating railroad
and warehouse commission is piece of
legislative patchwork composed of pro-
visions borrowed from different and dis
similar sources, without uniformity of
plan and not always consistent with
each other. The construction of the
act is therefore difficult task. Being
purely the creature of statute. the right
of appeal from the decision of the COM
mission to the district court, if it exists.
must be found in express provisions of
the act. The e=only provision assuming
to give any such right is that contained
in subdivision of section 15. We do not
think that this WAS intended to give a
right of appeal from mere adminiStra-
tive orders made pursuant to tine
provision of section 10 pertaining
to the manner of maintaining and Oper-
ating railroads and affecting merely the
security. convenience and accOmmoda-
ton of the general public. Our best
judgment is that it applies only to
: those orders or reports made perSuant
to the provisions of sections Is and ii
upon complaint of some person against
carrier charging it with some viola
ton of duty. resulting in damage or IN
jury to him. The subject matter of
such orders or reports, being mainly
tie reI aratlon or compensation which
the carrier should make to the COM
plainant for the injury done to him is
judicial in its nature. and ought prop
erIy be the subject of an investigation
by the courts upon appeal; although in
aSmuch as under this statute their or
ders or reports bind no one and are
merely prima facie evidence of the mat
ters therein stated, it is difficult to dis
cover the necessity for an appeal from
them.
There are two reasons which eSpe-
pecially lead us to the conclusion that
the right of appeal given by section Is
does not extend to administrative Or
ders made pursuant to the provisions of
section 10.
First-Upon appeal the case is to be
tried lie novO upon new evidence and
upon questions of fact as well as of law.
The court has to place itself III place of
the commission, or. as expressed by the
learned Judge who tried the case, 1.-The
hearing before the court is de noyo, and
the court is to make the same determin-
alton in respect to the subject matter
involved as though the question had
originally arisen in the court" But it
is not to be presumed that the Iegis-
lature intended to turn the courts into
appellant railroad commissions which
should retry the facts and pass upon
matters of purely administrative ma
ture relating to the maintenance and
operation of railways and involving
merely questions of policy affecting the
security or convenience of the public.
Indeed, il the act assumed to confer
upon the courts jurisdiction over mat
ters so entirely foreign to the judicial
full validity, to say the least of it.
Secondly-The act expressly provides
that upon the taking of the appeal there
shall be deemed pending in such court
| a civil action of the character and for
| the purposes mentioned in sections IL
and Is. By reference to these sections
it is found that the only civil action
| mentioned is one brought by or in be-
| half of some individual to recover dam
| ages or reparation for some injury done
| him by carrier by reason of some
| violation of duty-the action mentioned
| in section IL being one Of that kind
brought by the party himself without
| making any complaint to the commits
| sion, and that mentioned in section Is
j being one of the same kind brought in
his behalf by the attorney general after
| an investigation and report by the COM
mission upon complaint. The only
method of enforcing administrative
orders made under section 10 Is by
| suit instituted for that pur-
pose at the instance of the
commission are questions not now
before us. All that we decide is that no
appeal lies directly from such an order
to the district court. The order at
tempted to be appealed from in this
case, if within the authority of the COM
mission at all, is an administrative
order made under section 10. No APP
peal from 1t to the district court was
authorized, and, therefore, that court
never acquired jurisdiction. The order
of the district court is, therefore, re-
versed and the cause remanded, with di-
rections to the court below to dismiss
the appeal of the railroad company.
RearQument Denied.