The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-03-25
United States Supreme Court JUS
tices Differ on Very I'M
portant Case.
The Question at Issue That of the
Rights of a Railroad Com
mission.
Railway Companies Must Not BE Cut Down
TO Rates which Virtually Forfeit
Their Properties.

WASHINGTON. March 2i.-The United
States supreme court today reversed the
decision OF the Minnesota supreme court
against certain railroad companies, known
as "the granger cases" The issue WAS Ger
tain rates prescribed by the state railroad
commissioner. which the railroad compan
les asserted were so low as practically 10
amount 10 depriying the company of its
property, without due process OF law. JUS
tice Blatchford. delivering the opinion Of
the court. says il must accept the construc-
tion put upon the stnte statute by the Min
nesota supreme court; that court declared
it is the expressed intention of the legisla-
ture that the rates fixed by the railroad
commissioner are not simply advisory, but
final and conclusive; that the law neither
contcmplates nor allows any issue made or
inquiry had as to their equality or reasona-
bleness in facts IN other words,
although railroad company is for
hidden 10 establish rates not equal
and reasonable. there is no power
in the courts to stay the commission if IL
chooses TO establish rates that are unequal
and unreasonable. The question of reason
ableness OF n rate for transportation by a
railroad company, says the opinion, is emi-
nently question for Judicial investigation,
requiring due process of law for determine
tlon. II tho company is deprived of the
power of charging reasonable rates in the
absence Of investigation by judicial
machinery. IL is deprived of the
lawful use of its property, and
thus, in substance and effect Of
property itself. without due process of law,
and in violation of the constitution, and
while other persons are permitted 20 receive
reasonable profits from invested capital.
this company is denied the equal protection
of the law.
Justice Miller concurred with some hesi-
tation IN the Judgment Of the court. He
was Of the opinion that the legislature or
the commission appointed by II had the
right 90 establish rates, but where unjust
rates were fixed. the parties aggrieved had
the right TO appeal 10 the courts. The rail-
roads should have the right 10 be heard,
and as the supreme court OF Minnesota re-
fused. this case, in his opinion, should be
reversed ON the ground that this is denial
of due process of law.
Justice Bradley. for himself and justices
Gray and Lamar. delivered an oral dissent.
II seemed 60 him that the decision of the
court practically overruled The decision IN
other cases. in which il had been held an
adjustment of rates was Legislative and
judicial prerogative. The courts should
never make issues with the legislative de-
partment where il was possible TO avoid il.
II might he asked If the public was not at
the mercy Of the legislature. He answered
yes. There had 20 be final tribunal
somewhere 10 decide every case. The
question was which was the proper final
tribunal. In his opinion il was the legis-
lature. He did not mean there might not
arise circumstances which would give the
judiciary power in the matter but it was
not so in this case,