The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-05

Hardly a session passes but some one
with an imaginary grievance intro
duces a bill to make the office Of railway
commissioner elective. He finds support
among a few politicians who look with
hungry eyes upon the salaries of the
office, but know that their qualifications
would never commend them to an ap-
polntive power, while their talent for
deals and dickers in conventions might
enable them to make a combine that
would give them the nomination. So
far these efforts have failed because no
majority Of the members ever yet felt
that the interests of the state should
be sacrificed to crafty spleen or hum
ger
The biennial bill has again made it's
appearance. The occasion seems to make
appropriate a review of the expert
ence Of the state in it's railway commits
sion with the purpose Of ascertaining
under which, the elective or appointiye
method, the state has been better serv-
ed. We are confident that this will
De the point of view of the majority Of
the legislature. When the Granger
movement against the railways for
their regulation and control began in
the early seventies Minnesota provided
Tor a railway commission Of one mem
Der in 1872, to be appointed by the gov
ernor. In 1874 two more were added
to the board. Two years later the
law was changed reducing the board to
one member and making him elective.
Two commissioners, Marshall and Bak-
er, held under this method until 1885.
when the method was again changed
back to the appointive system, and that
has remained unchanged, if not unat-
tackled, ever since.
The railway commission is created
for purpose and that is expressed in
the law. Their powers are absolutely
limited to those given in the statute
An impression prevails that they have
despotic power to make railways do
what they wish done The legislature
has, on one or two occasions, clothed
them with powers that the courts have
held beyond the constitutional power
Of that body to grant. The switching
case was one; the Hanley Falls "Y'' is
another, and there are others in this
ana other states. The commission is
lmlted by the statutes and the Iegisla-
ture by the constitution. Another
hindrance is the usual one of the gen.
crosby Of legislatures in creating Of
fees and granting powers, but refus-
ing the money necessary to operate
with. But, as between the two meth
DDS of securing these officers, and con-
sideratiOn as to which is the better
reference must be had to the results ac-
complished by the commission under
the two methods. This information is
to be obtained in their annual reports.
We hare taken the trouble to exam
inc these with view to ascertain what
each has done in the execution of its
powers and the performance of it's du-
ties. We commend a similar examina-
ton and comparison to any member Of
the legislature who may wish to get
at the merits of the case.
The first appointive commissioners
We're evidently feeling their way. The
Office was a new one; the railways were
bitterly contesting the right and power
of the state to regulate them. They
were pleading vested rights and the
"sacredness of private property" 1t
took the Granger cases to clear away
their legal rubbish and enthrone the
state. Aside from the data gathered
from the railway reports the official
reports Of these first commissioners to
the governor are perfunctory. Impa-
tient with this apparent inactivity of
the commission and faulting the meth
Cd of appointment rather than the con-
ditions beyond the control of the COM
missioners, the legislature made the Of
flee elective. The reports of Commits
sioner Marshall contain very little of
account Of the exercise Of his powers
during his six years Of incumbency.
Baker followed, and his reports show
his fertile imagination and his fatal
fuency of speech. They are eloquent
and contain expansive ideas Of what
the commission should be empowered