The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-05-31

supposed that the legislature OF
any state or a commissioner tp-
pointed under the authority, Oh
any state will ever engage in dellOer-
ate attempt to cripple or destroy IN
stitutions of such great value to the
community as the railroads, out VIII
always act with the sincere puIpOse
of doing justice to the owners OF ran
road property as well as 10 other III
dividuals, and also that no Legislation
If a state as to the mode of proceeding
on ite own courts can abridge or mod
ify the power existing in the ieueral
courts sitting as counts of equity. 80
that If in any case there should De
apy mistaken action on the part OF
state or it's commission injurious 10
the rights of q railroad corporation,
any citizen of another state Interested
directly therein can find in the leu-
eraI court all the relief which court
of equity is justified i'll giving we
do not deem it necessary TO pass upon
these specific objections, because the
llth section may be dropped from the
statute without affecting the valldlty
of the remaining portions, and Ii the
rates established by the commission
are not conclusive they are at least
prima facie evidence of what IS reason
able and just.
For the purpose OF this case it may
be conceded that both the clauses are
unconstitutional and still the great
body of the act remains unchanged
that which establishes the commls-
sion and empowers it to make reason
able rates and regulations for the con-
troll of railroads. 1t is familiar law ina
one section or part Of an act may De
INVALID without affecting the validity
of the remaining portion of the stat
ute. Any independent provision may
be thus dropped out if that when IL
left is fully operative as a law, unless
it is evident from Consideration OF
ell the sections that the Legislature
would not have enacted that which Is
within independently of that beyond
its power. Applying this rule. ana
the invalidity OF those two provisions
may be conceded without impairlpg
the force of the balance OF the act.
The creation of commission with
the power to establish rules for the
operation of railr, ads and to regulate
rates was the prime object OF the leg
islature. This is fully accomplished
whether any penalties are imposed
for violation OF the rules prescribed,
or Wheth er the rates shall be con-
elusive or simply prima facie evidence
of what is Just and reasonable. The
matters of penalty and the effect as
evidence of the rates are wholly lnde-
Of
neither can it be supposed that the
legislature would not have established
the commission and given IL
power over railroads without these
independent matters. In other
words it is not to be presumed
that the Legislature was legislatlng
for the mere sake of imposing penal
ties, but the penalties aud the provis-
ion as to evidence were simply in aid
of the main purpose of the statute.
They may tail and still the great BODY
of the statute have operative force ana
the force contemplated by the legisla.
ture in it's enactment We, therefore,
for the purposes of this case, assume
that these two provisions OF the stat
ate ore open to the constitutional 90
jections made against them. We DO
not mean by this to imply that they
are so in fact, but simply that 1T is un-
necessary to consider aud determine
the matter And we leave it open for
future consideration.
Elsewhere in the decision the court
holds the rates as fixed by the com.
are not conclusive, as stated
in section 5, but merely prima facie
evidence of reasonableness. And
again, the court is very plain in indi-
eating that suits can be brought in
other places than in Travis county, ss
the law prescribes, and says that the
FEDERAL courts will promptly give all
equitable relief against unreasonable
ness. For the court pointedly says
that while the Legislature may
through q commission fix rates, yet
this will not preclude The courts from
inquiring into and deciding their rea~
condolences, and the supreme court
itself set precedent in this by decid
ing the rates already made in the case
before it were unreasonable and in
prohibiting the commission from en-
forcing them.
The conclusions from the decision
are:
First-The railroads have gained a
victory in having the "conclusive'
ness" of rates eliminated from the
law and in that the commission is
given to understand that it is wholly
competent for the federal courts to in.
quire into the reasonableness of rates
and that during such inquiry re-
straining orders will be granted,
Second The state has gained 8
great victory by having her railroad
commission law as a whole declared
constitutional and thoroughly in con
sonance with the laws of the United
States as to general purposes anC
| intent. 1t now but remains
for our commissioners t.
frame their rates with the creates
care and scrupulous justice to all in
| terests concerned and Texas will b.