Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1897-07-09

pie 10 lImlC tlleiE CudiSeo' AAoT Aoo6n
the law at every step and ralsoa every
question that was possible to raise, but
the supreme court of the United States ir
the Granger cases held by divided
court, fve to four, that the power was in
the state 1t wac a very close call. II
one Judge had changed his vote the peo
ple of the country would have beer at the
mercy of the transportation corporations
with no power in the government to in
any manner limit their extortion, but
fortunate for the people of this republic
and for it's existanoe and perpetuity, the
declaration was handed down by this
august court that there was power in the
legislature and in the people to limit the
charges which the railroads might fix for
their services and the rule of law was
laid down that "whea one devotes his
property to use in which the public has
an interest, he. in effect, grants to the
public an interest in such use, and must,
to the extent of that interest, submit to
of such interest he has thus created"
That business is. IN its nature. public
which all the public is compelled to
patronize and that the public has right
to control it. This decision has been
affirmed time and time again by the
supreme court of the United States and
e,>11 h., oil ha toto
so it is no longer an open question that
there is power in the people to control
the railroads. The railroads met their
Waterloo in that decision. If they had
succeeded they would have been sover-
eign. The railroads soon recovered from
the effects of that decision and again
took up the fight against the public con-
trolling their property or their: charges.
In the Iowa cases, similar to that in the
state of South Dakota case. they enjoined
the Iowa railroad commissioners from
putting in their schedules. The case
was tried in the federal court there. A
similar injunction was granted in that
case. They also denied the power Of the
Iowa railroad com missioners to fix the
railroad schedules. But the federal
court IN Iowa denied their contention and
held that there was power in the legisla-
ture to legislate to the commission the
duty and power of fixing the schedule Of
rates and classify the railroads. Again
the railroads were beaten. Accepting
these decisions, the railroads did not yet
submit to the sovereignty Of the people
and abide the law. They claimed that
granting and acquiesing in the settlement
of the question that there was power in
the people to fix their charges, still there
vas limit to their exercise of that
power and that the charges fixed should
be reasonable and compensatory. That
is that the charges should afford to the
company sufficient income to pay the
expenses of the operation of the roads,
keep them in repairs and pay some dlvl-
dends upon the stock Of the roads. They
won this contention that there was a
limit to the exercise Of the power of the
people to that of reasonableness. Who
should determine what was reasonable,
was the next vital question TO be deter.
mined. 1t the legislature should deter
mine what was reasonable charges. of
course it would be supreme and any law
it enacted would be final. This conten-
tion was again taken to the supreme
court of the United States. and that court
held that there was limit to the power
of the people to fix the railroad charges
and the limit Of that power was a reason
able charge, and what was a reasonable
charge was a judicial question, one
which the court should pass upon and
not the legislature or the railroad COM
mission. The railroads have always
been anxious to escape from the legis-
ature to the protection of the court.
The state OF Minnesota. through Its rail-
.oad commission, fixed schedule of
:ailroad maximum charges, and provided
hat there was no appeal from these
charges. Again the railroads, the same
giants that are contending here, resisted
his law and brought it before the
supreme court of the United States and
hat court held that their contention was
light, that the maximum charges fixed |
must be reasonable and that the court
vas the tribunal to say that it was
reasonable. The Minnesota law pro-
,ibiting any appeal from the charges |
liked by the railroad commission, was
i'll depriving the rail-
oads of their property without due
process of law, that is to have the reason
Lbleness of their charges passed upon by
he court. Again the railroads won a
'ictory, it having been finally settled and |
10 longer open for discussion that there
s power in the legislature, either directly |
n by com mission, to fix the charges. 1t
4lso settled that these charges must be
and reasonableness is
imitation. Hence whenever statute is
nacted the question of reason ableness is
judicial one and Ole for the court.
NJ ,eo ro,1rouIs hoi foroinn oorroro.