The Topeka state journal., 1897-03-09

of the legislature under a constitution
which provided that all corporations be-
ing common carriers. should be bound TO
carry on "equal and reasonable terms
ana under a statute which provided that
all charges made by a common carrier for
the transportation OF passengers or prop
What was said in that opinion TO The
question of the reasOna bleness OF the rate
of charge being one for. i1ldfcial investis-.a-
ton, had no reference to the case where
the rates are prescribed directly by the
legislature, says the supreme court In
this decision of Budd New York. tho
court distinctly reaffirms the original
proposition that the legislature can fix
kota. 153 U. S. S9i The supreme court
again affirms the right of the state TO fix
a maximum rate. This was IN 1893. Even
IN the Arkansas case. found in the 156 u
S, page $40, the United States supreme
court upheld the legislature. In the Tex
as case. found in 154 u S, Regan VS.. The
Farmers Loan & Trust Co, there was.
tory provisions, local to that state. with
the exception of a few isolated cases. in
exception is discovered. the entire line Of
judicial Interpretation has established the
sole judge of what is a reasonable maxi
mum rate for a common carrier to assess
been any exceptions in the last ten years.
and all of them have been in the last ten
great corporations have managed TO
WELD upon a supreme court packed by
shall renew in the public mind the respect
and admiration which it enjoyed in the
VINO toiloWed nm, there VIII be a return
to the time honored principles which made
the legislature and not the courts the
judges of what is reasonable NIeanwhiIe,
all that Is necessary is TO avoid the con-
is reasonable. which is all any can ASK.
and There IS no power in Venice to al
For two hundred and fifty years, IN Eng
land and in this country. the decisions
OF the courts have uniformly been that the
regulation OF tolls for highways, ferries.
warehouses, and WharVes. and common
car carriers, e was a iesisiative and not judi
any decision of the supreme court of the
- Silleeu Ste1tts, 5 uoWn - lhS year loo9; tfiaL
the courts dreamed that they had any
power to interfere. Up to that time it
was uniformly held that the regulation OF
common carriers was matter wholly
within the province of the legislature and
If injustice were done to any party.
appeal must be to a subsequent leg1sia-
ture and not to the courts In 1885, in
passing upon the case of Stone The
arTners' Loan & Trust Co. the supreme
court gave the first intimation that the
court had changed front on that propo-
that time on down to this thev have stead
ily and in every case gone little bit far
ther IN declaring their rights to jurisdic-
ton in this matter: but twelve years OF
usurpation compared with two hundred
and htty years OF Justice IS a small mat
ter and the signs of the times are that by
the time a suit started now in pursuance
OF maximum rate passed by the legisla-
ture. should get to the court of final jur-
isdictiOn, the judges of our highest courts
VINO now usurp authority not granted to
them by the constitution or by the laws.
will be driven from Their positions by the
people, and their silken robes of justice
be placed upon the backs of honest men.
However, the supreme court of the Uni
ted States has not yet said that the iegis-
mum rate. but has affirmed that propo-
sition. and so far has only said that the
ties made must be reasonable. and that
the court. and not the legislature a
subsequent one. is 20 be the Judge of what
is reasonable. Therefore. it seems to me,
in view of these decisions that, first the
Legislature should make schedule Of
rates itself then there would be Ques-
ton as to delegated powers; but. if the
legislature in its wisdom sees fit to dele
gate powers to n commission, that COM
mission should be given large judicial
powers, not for the purpose of hearing one
complaint-we already have courts for
obedience to its writs and to prevent il
from being hampered and interfered with
by the inferior courts of the state.
The commission should be empowered to
make rates upon hearing. the date OF
which should be fixed by the statute. or
notice of which should be given by the
comTnissfon- In this way It avoids the le-
gal technical1ties of court procedure and
becomes a representative of the legisla-
ture and not an adjunct of the courts
such a comm iSSiOn. with such powers I
believe would have the power and the
right to make schedule of rates for the
entire state as if the legislature itself had
done
Every man is the custodian of his own
conscience and of his own alone AS ac-
for myself. In view of the pledges 1 made
the people who placed me in office. that I
would do all in my power to get them re-
lief from eXhOrbitant freight rates. I feel
impe1led to make these suggestions.
In conclusion let say that after SER
ious reflection 1 feel compelled TO veto
this bill and return it to you without my
signature for such action as the legisla-
- JOHN W. LEEDY.
Governor.