The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-24

lOfUe III W0ACl kh0 SutAPANO S~sssRs~s's
resisted the act Of the legislature pre-
scribing the rates Of toll 1t might
charge. The one case, affecting inter-
state commerce, came within the juris-
diction Of federal courts by virtue OF
the constitutional provision giving con-
gress control Of such commerce be-
tween the states. and the latter was
brought within it, although all the par
ties were local to Kentucky. by that
other provision prohibiting the taking
Of property without due process of law.
If an act Of the legislature prevent the
earning of dividends, it deprives the
company of its property.
The court held that the gist of the
case was whether the rates prescribed
were just and reasonable or not, and
that this is a judicial question. In the
course Of it's remarks the court says:
$50 that the right of the public to use the
plaintiffs turnpike upon payment of sucn
tolls as in view Of the nature and value or
the service rendered by the company are
reasonable, Is an element In the general IN
quiry whether the rates established by law
are unjust and unreasonable. That inquiry
also involves other considerations-such, for
instance, the reasonable cost OF main
tanning the road In good condition for pubic
use and the amount that may have been
really and necessarily invested in the enter
prise. In short, each case must depend upon
its special facts; and when court, without
assuming itself to prescribe rates. Is re-
Quired to determine whether the rates pre-
scribed by the legislature for corporation
controlling a public highway are, as an en-
its property for all the purposes for which 1t
was acquired. Its duty Is to take into con-
sideration the interests both of the public
and of the owner of the property, together
with al other circumstances that are fairly
to be considered in determining whether the
legislature has, under the guise of regulat-
thority and practically deprived the owner Of
property without due process of law. What
those other circumstances may be 1t Is not
necessary now to decide That can be best
done after the parties have made their
proofs"
Between this decision that rates must
be reasonable and the decision In the
trans-Missouri case that congress may
make illegal and even criminal any
contract between railroads which rem
ders rates stable, even though it be
reasonable" the Post finds conflict
of decisions which should fill the mind
Of those engaged in the actual business
of transportation with wonder" The
wonder is that the Post thus misses
the broad distinction. The Mis-
souri, case presented the simple ques-
ton whether the agreement of the as
ISOLATION was or was not one that fell
within the prohibition Of the antitrust
act. That, and not the rates, was the
gravamen Of the case. It was the pur-
pose to combine so as to control rates
that was forbidden, not one to make
and control unreasonable rates or
prices.
But the Post misses the really i'm
portant point in the turnpike case,
foreshadoWing what the decision Of the
court may be when the Nebraska rate
case comes before 1t. In that case JUS
tice Brewer held that the rates Of
freight prescribed by the legislature
were unreasonable and the act void,
because under them the railroads could
not earn enough to pay expenses, fixed
charges and also pay dividends on
their capitalization. This implied that
res adjudicata and could not be In
quired into to ascertain If it represent
ed actual investment Of money or was
in part composed Of water" It Is in
view. Of this that the observation of
the court in the foregoing extract be-
comes important. THAT inquiry into
the reasonableness Of the tolls, says the
court, involves other considerations
such, for instance, as the reasonable
cost of maintaining the road In good
condition for public use and the amount
sarily invested In the enterprise" Most
Of the arguments for the control Of
rates by the state or commissions have
been based on the fact that there has
been injected into the stock Of some
railroads, both under organization and
reorganization schemes, quantity of
water" representing no amount real
ly and necessarily invested in the en-
terprise," but utilized as basis on
which to justify rates. The court, In
this decision, apparently opens the door
to inquiry into the amount Of this ficti-
tious capital, and is thus far more i'm
portant than any fancied conflict with
a former ruling.
THE CHIPPEWA PINE SCANDAL,
No more fragrant illustration Of the
mischief OIL spoils in connection with