Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1897-04-07


the authorities your committee has no
! hesitation in answering In the mega
tive the questions; is the reasonable
ness of rate necessarily judicial? In
the face of the long line of decisions
upon this subject, we think that the
question would not, at this day, be
mOOted, but for some expressions of
! the supreme court in the Minnesota
: case, to which in the judgment of
| your commi' Zee, too much Importance
has been attached, if, indeed, they
have not been misunderstood. What
| is the Minnesota case? Under a sta
tute which, in effect, authorized the
! board of commissioners, to fix
schedule of equal and reasonab BILE rates,
the board without being required to
give the railroads any notice what
ever, fixed the schedule and undertook
to enforce the rate by judicial pro
ceeding. The state courts held that
the rate SO fixed were binding on the
road and the courts. The supreme
court of the United States held, on ap-
| peal, that such a statue, so construed,
was unconstitutional. In effect, the
latter court holds that the authority
delegated to the Minnesota commiss-
ion was not absolute, but limited to a
| schedule reasonable to the railroads, as
well as to the public; that under the
statute itself any rates fixed by the
commission, not thus reasonable, were
ultra wires, as without the Jurisdiction
and that to compel the railroads, with
out legal opportunity to be heard, to
submit to rates so esta ablished, would
not be due process of law The canon
of construction in such cases is that
the statute must be judged, not by
what is done, but what must be done,
under 1T and, as here there was no
| legal provision for the railroads to be
heard by the commissioners, as the
discretion of the commission was linn
tied by the statute itself, and, as the
railroads were cut off from all inquiry
as to whether the limitations SO i'm
posed had been exceeded or not, the
majority of the court thought the
grounds were made out showing want
of due process of law. Any views ex-
pressed beyond this may be regarded
as obiter dicta. In this view of it the
Minnesota case is easily reconcila BILE
with the Granger decisions.
1.-THE power of legislative control is
not, however, without limit. The powe +
of the British Parliment is not the test
of Legislative power in sthis country.
Here the power of sovereignty, which,
according to Chief Justice Taney, Is
How, 5s3) is inherent in every govern
ment, and which is the power to gov
ern men and things, is not arbitrary or
despotic, but restrained by constltu-
tional limitations In several of the
latter cases the supreme court, in sus-
tanning the exercise of the right of
public regulation, have expressly used
the words of qualifications to which
some meaning must be given. This
power to regulate is not the power to
destroy. and limitation isinot the equiv
alent of confscation. The
| state cannot require railroads to carry
without reward; neither can it do that
which in law amounts to taking of
private property for public use, with
out just co onpeusation or without due
process of law" (Stone VS.. Farmers
Loan Sc Trust company, 116, U. S.,
! 331.)
Judge Brewer now of the supreme
! bench, in the case of C. &c N. Railway
Company VS.. Dey 35 Federal Report,
s79, held that the rulings of the
supreme court imply that the legisla-
ture may reduce railroad rates until
only minimum of compensation is
secured to the owner, and declared the
rule to be this, viz: That where the
proposed rates will give compensation,
railroad property, the courts have no
power to interfere. Appeal must then
be made to the legislature and the
people. The learned judge added,
however, that compensation or reward
implies three things, payment of cost
of service, interest on bonds and then
some dividends"
In conclusion the commission sums
mp in the following language: 1.-The
fact that the courts and the people in
slst that the matter of rates is of legis-
lative and administrative rather than
a judicial nature, is not to be regarded
as mark of hostility to railroad cor
porations. The question is simply one
of public policy; the purpose, effectual
means of control: the object, to shift
to apt tribunals the responsibility of
| securing justice to all the interests in
volved, and not the deprivation of rea-
sonable allowance by arbitrary enact
ment or official act By remanding
the question to the legislative or ad-
ministra:ive department of govern
ment no one pretends that the problem
of what is reasonable is solved or
Stunned. The responsibility is shifted,
not avoided. That problem remains
still to be worked out on lines fair
alike to private capital and the public
welfare"
Said report concluded with the pre-
sentation of three resolutions; the
first and third of which were adopted
] L IL