Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1897-04-01


report has this to say: "In view Of all
the authorities your committee has no
hesitation.in answering In the mega
tive the question; is the reasonable
ness Of rate necessarily judicial? In
the face of the long line Of decisions
upon this subject, we think that the
question would not, at this day, be
mooted, but for some expressions OF
the supreme court in the Minnesota
case, to which in the judgment OF
your commi ee, too much Importance
has been attached, if, indeed, they
have not been misunderstood. What
is the Minnesota case? Under a sta
tute which, in effect, authorized the
board of commissioners, to fix a
schedule of equal and reasonable rates,
the board without being required to
give the railroads any notice what
ever, fixed the schedule and undertook
to enforce the rate by judicial pro
ceeding. The state courts held that
the rate SO fixed were binding on the
road and the courts. The supreme
court of the United States held, on ap-
peal, that such statue, so construed,
was unconstitutional. In effect, the
latter court holds that the authority
delegated to the Minnesota commiss-
ion was not absolute, but limited to
schedule reasonable to the railroads, as
well as to the public; that under the
statute itself any rates fixed by the
commission, not thus reasonable, were
ultra wires, as without the jurisdiction
and that to compel the railroads, with
out Legal opportunity to be heard, to
submit to rates so established, would
not be due process of law. The canon
of construction in such cases is that
the statute must be judged, not by
what is done, but what must be done,
under 1t and, as here there was nc
legal provision for the railroads to be
heard by the commissioners, as the
discretion OF the commission was linn
tied by the statute itself, and, as the
railroads were cut off from all inquiry
as to whether the limitations so i'm
posed had been exceeded or not, the
majority of the court thought the
grounds were made out showing wan
Of due process of law. Any views ex
pressed beyond this may be regarded
as obiter dicta. In this view of it the
Minnesota case is easily reconcilablC
with the Granger decisions.
"The power of legislative control il
not, however, without limit. The powel
of the British Parliment is not the tes
of legislative power in 'this country
Here the power of sovereignty, which
according to Chief Justice fancy, {
How, 5S3) is inherent in every govern
ment, and which is the power to gov
ern men and things, is not arbitrary O
despotic, but restrained by constltu
tional limitations. In several of the
latter cases the supreme court, in sus
tanning the exercise of the right o
public regulation, have expressly use'
the words of qualifications to whicl
some meaning must be given. Thi
power to regulate is not the power Il
destroy, and limitation isinot the equiv
alent OF conhscation. y Thu
state cannot require railroads to carry
without reward; neither can it do tina
which in law amounts to taking o.
private property for public use, with
out Just co npeusation or without du'
process of law" (Stone VS.. Farmers
Loan & Trust company, 49,. U. S.
331.)
Judge Brewer now of the supIem,
bench, in the case of C. & N. Railwa.
Company VS.. Dey IS Federal Report
$40, held that the rulings of tn,
supreme court imply that the legisla
ture may reduce railroad rates unit
only a minimum of compensation is
secured to the owner, and declared thu
rule to be this, viz: That where thu
proposed rates will give compensation
however small, to the owners of thu
railroad property, the courts have NJ
power to interfere. Appeal must ther
be made to the legislature and the
people. The learned judge added
however, that compensation or reward
implies three things, payment of cos
of service, interest on bonds and ther
some dividends.
In conclusion the commission sum-
mp in the following language: "The
fact that the courts and the people in
sist that the matter of rates is of legis
lative and administrative rather thar
q judicial nature, is not to be regarded
as mark of hostility to railroad cor
poratiOns. The question is simply ont
of public policy; the purpose, effectua
means of control; the object, to shift
to apt tribunals the responsibility o
securing justice to all the interests in
volved, and not the deprivation of rea
sonable allowance by arbitrary enact.
ment or official act. By remandinl