Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1891-02-17
RAILWAY COMMISSION RATES /!
And Power to Make and En-
force Joint Rates,
SUSTAINEDBY The IOWA COURT.
Suggestions for OregOn's Elk.
ecutive aud Legislators.

ONso NhOlNES, rcOs os-SDeClhis
The famous joint rate case has been
settled, and the railroad commits
sioners are on top again. When the
last Legislature enacted that now fa-
NOUS, law the roads fought 1t tooth
and nail and haye contrived to do so
ever since. A test case was made by
the Burlington, Cedar Rapids and
Northern,in which that road refused
to adopt the rates and secured an ill.,
junction against the board putting
them in. 1t was heard before Judge
Fairall, in the johnson county dis
trict, and the injunction was sus-
tained. All of the leading attorneys
of the roads entering the state fought
the case, and the victory achieved
to-day by the reversal of the supreme
court is a feather in the cap of At.
torney- General Stone and the rail-
road commissioners. The opinion is
written by Chief Justice Beck and
covers some forty pages of close type
written manuscript. The opinion is
dissen'ed to by Judges Robinson and
Rothrock. The case Is of the most
vital Importance. as it settles for all
time the question whether the rail-
road commission has the power,
hacked by the legislature, to control
the railroad corporations. The action
was brought in chancery to restrain
and enjoin the defendants, acting as
railroad commissioners of the state,
from establishing and promulgating
joint rates Of charges for transporta-
ton of freight and cars over plain
tiff s and other connecting railroads.
Upon the petition, before it was filed,
an injunction was allowed, which,
after the filing Of the petition, the
defendant moved to dissolve. The
motion was Overruled, and from
the order tu that effect the defend.
ants appealed.
In its railing the supreme court
says: "Hhe motion 10 dissolve the
injunction shows that the statutes
are in harmony with the constitu
ton. The petition does not show
that plaintiff is entitle to the relief
prayed for In the petition, and that
Judge Fairall in the district court
had no jurisdiction in the case, for
the reason that it is in fact, an action
against the state, and il Is not shown
that the state authorized or consented
to this bringing of the suit. The
considerations just expressed lead to
the conclusion that the power and
authority vested in the state, under
which the rates OF charges for the
transportation of freight by railways
are regulated, may be exercised t.
establish what is called Joint
through rates That the state may
fix the maximum charges for the
transportation of freight by railroads,
which shall not be unreasonable, is
not disputed in this case. 1t has
been 80 decided by The UnitedStates
supreme court and the doctrine has
been recognized by the court. In
our opinion no facts or distinction in
principle exist which deprive the
state OF authority and power to es-
tablish ,joint rates which IL may in
the exercise of its constitutional au.
thOrity fix rates of freight charges
for each separate railway. The state,
in the exercise Of itsauthOrity, in ac-
cord with Legislative wisdom, may
discover that separate rates when
united rates are too small TO compen-
safe the carrier or too large to do jus
tice to the shipper; that justice
demands such a modification of
the separate charges that the sum
thereof will be reasonable and just |
both to the railroad company and |
the shippers.