Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1897-09-16
Attorney General arigsby's Argument.

The attorney general prefared his argu-
ment with the statement that the abe,
convincing and conclusive argument pre-
sented TO the court by Mr.. NIL, was
founded upon the most conservative Of the
decisions that nave been rendered by the
highest courts in support of the claims
made by the defendants in these cases.
Il now propose said the attorney gem
eral, "to direct the attention Of the court
to the most advanced ground which has
been taken by the highest court of the
land in maintaining, what may be called,
the rights of the people as against the
corporations.
"That the legislature of a state has a
right to fix, either directly by an act Of
the legislature, or indirectly through a
commission, reasonable passeh. ger and
freight rates. upon traffic wholly within
the state borders, is now 80 well settled
as to be beyond controversy.
another general rule is: That the
power of the courts to suspend the en-
forcement of rates fixed by a railway
commission can only lie invoked when
such rates yield an income so small as to
leave absolutely nothing above operating
expenses
"The first case before the supreme court
of the United States upon this question
arose under a statute OK I'ino;s declaring
certain warehouses to be public ware
houses and fixing a maximum Of charges.
Chief Justice Wait del the majority
opinion of the court on March l, 1877. He
said: 1t is insisted, he ~ever, that the
owner OF property is entitled to a reasona-
BILE compensation for its use, even though
it be clothed with a public interest, and
that what is reasonable is a judicial and
not a legislative question: After giving
reason for holding that the legislature
had the power to determine what is rcas-
enable compensation the learned Judge
uses this significant language. We know
that this is a power that may be abused;
but that is no argument against its exist
ence. For protection against abuses by
legislatures, the people must resort to the
polls and not to the courts Mum vs..
Peop'e Of Illinois, "a U. s. 1l3.
I'm what are known as the granger
cases, which arose over the statute of
Iowa, regulating rates of fare and of
freight (the identical question before this
court) the United States supreme court
said: Where property has been clothed
with a public interest, the legislature may
fix a limit to that which in law shall be
reasonable for its use. This limits the
courts as well as the people. If it has
been improperly fixed, the legislature. not
the courts, must be appealed to for the
change
Again in the Minnesota case, the United
States supreme court said: 1T is stated
that all charges must be reasonable, and
that none but reasonable charges can be
exacted; and it is urged that what is a
reasonable charge is a judicial question.
On the contrary. it is prc-eminently a leg
~islative one, involving consideration Of
policy as well as of remuneration, and is
usually determined by the legislature by
fixing a maximum of charges in the char
ter of the company, or afterwards, if its
hands are not tied by contract
Right in the face of these emphatic
and positive declarations from the highest
court in the land, il will be commended by
corporation attorneys in this case that if
the rates fixed by the commissioner do
not yield a reasonable rate of interest on
the money invested, it will be the duty
Of this court to declare those rates to be
null and void.
Il say no. This court has nothing to
do with tho amount OF profit any company
shall be allowed to make in this state.
Concedc that the rates fixed will furnish
to either company any net profit what
ever, after paying taxes and operating
expenses and that company has no case
before this court.
"Such is the doctrine emphatically de-
clared and oft repeated by the highest
tribunal, and l challenge this whole array