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

clurLed with judicial functions or pos
sessing the machinery OF a court o.
~iustice. All that the commission II
rcouircd 10 do on the fling OF the rail
rnad tarit il Il ii "lnds" any phT'
,ha,aot IN contain unreasonable OF
u~ne1ual rates to compel the company
to restore equal and reasonable
charges. No hearing is provided iof
the company 10 introduce witnesses
pstore the commission In fact nothing
which bss the semblance of due process
of law. The question OF the
uess of a rate of charge by a transporta-
ZION 10 emlnently a ft question
for dine process of law and determina-
ton by Judicial process as 10 lie
equality.
"Jns,ice Miller said that he con-
cured with aome hesitation In the
| Judgment of the court. bic wac OF tue
| opinion that either the legislature or u
commission appointed by 1t had the
| right to establish rates, but that whore
rates were fixed unjust to the railroad
company or 30 exorbitant as to be in
utter disregard of the rights OF the
public, the parties aggrieved had a
| right TO appeal to the courts, and
especially in the United States courts,
for relief. The proper mode Of relief
would be by a bill in c%hancery. He did
not agree with the court hat II was
necessary that common carriers should
he given notice before rates in which
they were interested were fixed, but
when tho question OF equality was
being fixed by tho courts it was nee
essary that these roads Interested
should be given notice.
"Justicc Bradley tor himself and his
two associates, delivered a vigorous
oral dissent. 1t seems to hun that the
decision practically overruled the
decision OF the court in other cases in
which ii had been held that the adjust
ment of rates was a Legislative prerog.
alive and not q judicial one. TIE
states, in charteringa railroad company,
delegated a duty which primarily was
the duty of the state, that OF providing
means of inter- communication from
one part of It's territory to another. 1t
was the legislatures duty to fix the
rates which might be charged. 1t was
the ~prerogstive OF the Legislature to
name what should be q reasonable rate
and on that he differed from his COL
leagues, Who held hat the final tri-
bunal of arbitration was the Judiciary.
The question, In his opinion, was all
administrative and not a judicial one.
The courts should never make an issue
with the Legislative department OF the
government where it was possible TO
avoid it. 1t might be asked: Is the
public at the mercy Of tho legislature2
He answered: Yes. There had to be a
final tribunal somew here TO decide
every case. The courts, II the matter
was left TO them, might reach a cOnclu
sion which would be thought unjust,
Just ~ was alleged against the commis-
sion. which was In this case the repre-
sentative OF the legislature, just as the
case would be If the Legislature Itself had
undertaken to fix rates. The question
was: What was the proper final tribu-
nal2 In his judgment II was the legis-
lature. lie did not mean that there
might not arise circumstances which
would give tho Judiciary power In the
matter, hut Il was not so in this case"
We have thus fully set out the char
acter of The cases, the decision, and the
views OF the minority of the court, in
order TO emphasize the difference be-
tween the Minnesota and Missouri
laws, and TO show that the decision
does not apply to the laws Of this
state.
Instead or providing that crates fixed
by the commission shall be final and
conclusive az TO what are equal and
reasonable railroad charges and "tbat
the law neither contemplates o allows
any issue to be made or inquiry TO be
made as 10 their equality or reasonable
ness In fact" and depriving the com
pany OF the right of judicial investiga.
lion by due process OF law, the Mis-
souri, law especially provides that the
schedules prepared by the railroad
commissioners shall he simply primd
fiacte evidence, the fact OF reasonable
ness 10 DO finally determined by
judicial proceedings before a court.
The only finding Of tho majority OF
the supreme court In the Minnesota
cases is, that in the law, 30 construed,
they aud that ''no hearing 10 PROVIDED
for, no opportunity provided Tor the
company to introduce witnesses before
the commission; in fact nothing which
has the semblance of due process OF
law" Hence: at (ths law deprIves
The company of its right to a judicial
investigation by due process Of law"
This can IN no sense apply to the
Missouri law. which provides. first, for
appeal, with witnesses and legal inves-
lIgation before the commission; and,
second, where there is complaint of
uniairness, for appeal to the courts.
The new French cabinet Ia Ms toll
lows: President of the council and
minister Of war, NJ. lie Freycinet; min