St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-03-25
CANNOT MAKE RATES
Minnesota's Railroad Com
mission Squelehed by the
Supreme Court.
Decisions OF the State Su-
preme Court in Granger
Cases Reversed.
The Action of the Commission
Is Held to Be Uneon-
stitutional.
Victory for the Railroads at
the Expense of the Courts
Consistency.

OOuS1oCClICys
WASHINGTON, March 24.-The su-
breme court of the United Sites to-day
rendered an opinion in the case of the
Minneapolis Eastern Railway company,
versus the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission of Minnesota, and in the
case of the Chicago, Milwaukee d st.
Paul Railway company versus the same.
These are what are known as granger
caSeS.'' In the first case, the commits
sion, without a hearing, made an order
fixing 81 per car, whether loaded or un-
loaded, as the maximum amount which
the railroad company would be allowed
to charge for handling and switching
rate being Sl.25 for empty, and
$3.50 for loaded cars. The
railroad maintained that its rates were
not unequal or unreasonable, and that
the price fixed by the commission was
an inadequate and unreasonable COM
penSation. and set forth the facts in re-
gard to its property earnings and ex-
penses in support of its statements. The
action of the commissioners, 1t con-
tends, would deprive the company Of
its property without due process OF law
and was therefore in violation of the
fourteenth article of the constitution.
In the second case the commission fixed
213 cents per gallon in ten-gallon cans,
as a just and
Reasonable Compensation
for the transportation of milk from
OwatOnna or Faribault to st. Paul or
Minneapolis, the former being seventy
one and the latter fifty-siX miles away
from Minneapolis. The railroad re-
fused to comply with the commissions
orders and contended that the same
rate for both distances was unreaSOna-
bic and contrary to the statute of Min
nesota. fOrbidding the giving Of an un
equal or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular local
ity; that the power to fix and establish
rates belonged to the legislature and
could not be delegated to the commits
sion; and furthermore, that the COM
MISSIONS action was unconstitutional,
for the reasons stated in the first case
in that 1t deprives the company of its
property without due process OF law.
The decision of the supreme court of
Minnesota was against the railroads,
and the case comes here on appeal.
This court reVerSes that Judgment,
though there was a strong minority in
favor of the state. The ground taken
by the court is that, as the decision Of
the commission was final, and as there
was no provision fol judicial deter
mination of the reasonablenesS of the
rates fixed, it amounted to taking the
property of the company without due
process of law, and was, therefore, I'M
constitutional. Justice Blatchford de-
liVered the opinion of the court, and
Justice Bradley delivered a dissenting
opinion in behalf of himself, Justice
Gray and Justice Lamar. Justice Miller
cOncurred in the conclusion reached by
the court, but did not fully approve the
opinion rendered.
Construction of the Statute.
Justice Blatchford, delivering the
opinion of the court, says that this court
must accept the construction put upon
the state statute by the supreme court of
Minnesota. That court he says, au-
thOritatively declares that it is the ex-
pressed intention of the legislature that
the rates fixed by the railroad commits
sion are not simply advisory, but final
and conclusive as to what are equal and
reasonable charges; that the law neither
cOntemplateS nor allows any issue to be
made OF inquiry to be had as to their
equality or reaSOnableness in fact. In
pany is forbidden to establish rates that
are rot equal and reasonable. there is
no power in the courts 10 stay the
hands of the commission if it
chooses to establish rates that are
unequal and unreasonable. This being
the construction of the statute by which
the court is bound in considering the
case, it is of opinion that, so construed,
it conflicts with the constitution of the
United States in the particulars COM
planned of by the railroad company. 1t
depTives the company of it's right to a
judicial investigation by due process of
solute finality the action of a railroad
commission which, in view of the
powers conceded to it by the state court,
cannot be regarded as
Clothed With Judicial Functions
or possessing the machinery of court
of justice. All that the commission is
required to do on the filing of the rail-
roads tariff is to find" that any part
thereof is in any respect unequal or
unreasonable, and then it is di-
rected to compel the company to
adopt charges which the commission
shall declare to be equal and
reasonable, and to inform it in writing
in what respect its charges are unequal
or unreasonable. No hearing is pro-
vided for, no opportunity provided for
the company to introduce witnesses be-
fore the commission; in fact, nothing
which has the semblance of due proc
eSS of law. The question of the reason
ableness of a rate OF charge for trans
portatiOn by railroad company is
eminently question for judicial invest
lgation, requiring due process of law
for its determination. If the company
is deprived of the power of charging
reasonable rates for the use of its prop
erty, and such deprivation takes place
in the absence Of investigation by Judi
cial machinery, it is deprived of the
lawful use of its property, and thus, in
substance and effect, of the propertv
itself without due process of law and in
violation of the constitution of the
United States; and in so far as it is thus
deprived, while other persons are per-
mitted to receive reasonable profits
from their invested capital, the COM
pany is denied the equal protection of
the law. Justice Miller said that he
concurred
With Some Hesitation
in the Judgment of the court. He was
of opinion that either the legislature
or a commission appointed by it had the
right to establish rates; but that where
rates were fixed unjust to the railroad
company or so exorbitant as to be
in utter disregard of the rights of the
public, the parties aggrieved had right
to appeal to the courts, and especially
the United States courts, for relief.
The proper mode of relief would be by
bill in chancery. He did not agree