The state chronicle., 1892-12-20
THE COMuISsION SUSTAINED.

THE COMuISSION SUSTAINED.
In the case of the Atlantic Express
Co. versus Wilmington and Weldon
Railroad Co. and the Richmond and
Danville Railroad Go. and which was
referred to in our last number, the i'm
portant question Of the jurisdiction Of
the Railroad Com mission, over ma
terial matters pertaining to the object
for which the Commission was created,
came up for the first time; and
the Supreme Court sustained The Com
mission. When Congress created the
lnterstat3 Commission it appeared that
the Federal Courts viewed with great
Jealousy the jnrisdc ion conferred, and
were disposed to resent it as an inva-
sion Of their prerogative. The decis
ions of these courts were about to rem.
der nugatory the act of Congress
and defeat the objects of the Interstate
Commission. We think that it was
the Federal Courts for New York
which took decided stand in sustain
ing The constitutionality of the act
of Congress, and the line of decisions
is now more favorable.
But in the case decided by our
State Supreme Court, the right of the
Jurisdiction Of our G Commission was de-
MED and the issue squarely made and
contested. If the court had held that
the Commission did not have jurisdic.
tion the principle so established would
virtually have destroyed the use of the
Commission.
The decision of our court, as it re-
lates to the question of jurisdiction,
we give in the language of Chief Jus
tice Shepherd, who delivered the opinion
Of the court. The Chief Justice said:
Although We are of the opinion, for
the reasons hereinafter stated, that the
particular relief asked for in this pro
ceeding IS not authorized by the pro
visions of what is known as the Grail
road Commission Act" still we do not
feel at liberty to ignore the important
question ofjuris1iction suggested in the
answers of the defendants and the ar.
guments OF counsel. The question is
SERIOUS vne and involves in great
measure the efficiency of the legislation
designed for the "supervison" of rail
road companies and other common car.
rlers II respect to the fixing of reason
able freight and passenger tariffs, the
prevention OF unjust determinations
and preferences, and the regulation OF
other matters pertaining to transpor.
tation within the state in which the
public is deeply interested. That the
legislature has the authority to provide
reasonable rules and regu ations for the
effectuating Of such purposes is too wei
settled to admit of discussion Railroad
VS.. Railroad, l04 n. G. 673; Railroad
VS. Iowa, ga L. 5. 155; Ruilroad VS.
Richmond, 10 Wall, 5S4), and i
IS equally well settled that in delegat
ing such authority to Commission i
does not transcend its constitutions
powers. Stone VS.. Trust Co. l16 u
, 3O7; l9 Am. and Eng Enc. of Law
$50 and the numerous authoritie
cited in the notes "The difference be
tween the power to pass a law ant
the power to adopt rules and recula
tlons to carry into effect law alread,
passed is apparent and great, and thi
we understand to be the distinctio,
recognized strikingly by all the court
as the true rule in determining whethe
or not in such cases, legislatiy
power is granted. The former woul
be unconstitutional, whilst the latte
would not" Georgia Il r &c. VI
Smith, 8 Am. q Eng. r. r. cases 38j
A careful scrutiny of the act of as
sembly constituting RAILROAD Com
mission > (acts 1891 ch. 320) fails t.
disclose purpose to confer upon tha
body anything in the nature of legisla
tive power. The act among othe
things denounces excessive charge;
unjust determinations and preference
as unlawful, and invests the Commi
sion with authority to 'to make sue
just and reasonable rules and regul.
tons as may be necessary for preven
ing" the same, the reasonablenes ss an
legality of such rules and regulation
being renewable by the courts. Tn
power as we have just seen may
delegated to Commission, and an
objection on that ground is thereto,
untenable.
1t IS insisted, however, that the Cor
mission has no jurisdiction to ente
tam and pass upon complaints mac
IN respect to the violation of the DR.
visions of section four and perhaE
other sections of the said act. Th
section declares that all unjust di
c,iminations and preferences shall
9R,iawful, and it is urged that the on
remedy provided against its infrac,i,
is by indictment to be prosecuted in
court Of competent jurisdiction. 1t
very plain to us that the contention
without foundation, as in section Fl
the authority Of the Commission
make rules and regulations for t
prevention Of these very a,
is expressly conferred. The subje,
embraced in section four are perha
the most important that are confid
to the regulation of the Commissic
and without reference to the pla