Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1898-01-28
OFFICIAL PAPER BURLE|GH co.

OFFICIAL PAPER BURlEIGh co.
CONCERNING MAXIMUM RATES
The fact that the state of North
Dakota is about to engage in the taking
of testimony to determine as to the
reasonableness of certain maximum
charges laid down by the railroad COM
m%issioners of this state, leads additional
interest to a forecast of the decision of
the supreme court of the United States
in a similar case in Nebraska. While
the decision has not yet been handed
down, as nearly as can be discovered,
the opinion is adverse to the State, and
declares that the law fixing maximum
rates is unconstitutional, because it de-
prives the stockholders of the railroads
of their property without due process of
law, and is an attempt to fix rates upon
interstate commerce., which is the
]prerogative Of the federal government.
The understanding about the court is
that the opinion will not be handed
down until the new Justice takes his
seat, and possibly not until just before
the adjournment of the court in the
spring. The decision has been anxiously
awaited by Wall street and railroad
authorities all over the country, for if
the Nebraska authorities should be
sustained each State would have the
right to fix maximum rates within its
own territory, no matter where the
freight originated. The Nebraska law
was passed in April, 1893, and it provided
an arbitrary classification of freight and
fixed rates as the maximum to be
charged for each class between all points
in the State of Nebraska. The law pro-
vidcs a penalty of $1,000 for the first
o%ffensc, and thereafter up to as high as
S25,OOO for each violation. Under the
provisions of the law, the State Board
of Transportation, undertook to regulate
the railroads. The Union Pacific filed
a bill in equity in the United State
Circuit Court, in which it was charged
that the law was unconstitutional and
void, the rates unreasonable and con-
tiscatory, and that the railroad COM
panies were deprived of the equal pro-
lection of the laws, while the act itself
was charged to be repugnant to the con-
stitution of the United States, because
it attempted to regulate interstate COM
merce.
In November, 1894, the United States
Court, which was presided over by
Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court,
entered a decree enjoining the railroad
companies from publishing a rate
schedule in accordance with the law, or
obeying or in any way conforming to the
provisions of the Nebraska act. The
Board of Transportation was eDjoined
from hearing any complaints against a
railroad company, and the Attorney
General of the State was forbidden to
bring any Injunction, mandamus, or
civil action against the road, on account
of this law.
The decree declared that the Nebraska
law was repugnant to the constitution
Of the United States because by it the
railroad companies could not exact for
the transportation of freight from one
point to another charges which would
yield to them a reasonable compensation
for their services The case was argued
before the Supreme Court in March,
1886, and reargued last April, when
William }. Bryan appeared as Il of the
attorneys for the State. It is under
stood a decision was reached by a full
court of nine Justices, ssand by a vote
of five to four. At that time, however,
Justice Field had already sent in his
resignation, and it was therefore deemed
best to hold the former decision until
the new Justice had had ar opportunity
to join in it. If Justice McKenna
should chance to uphold the law, it
would result in a divided court.
While the decision, if adverse to the
law, will have a general bearing upon
maximum rates and their PRONUNCIATION
by a state authority it need not neces-
sarily establish a precedent for other
states, since the North Dakota law pro-
vides that the rates promulgated shall
be reasonable and just. 1t is to estab-
lish this point that the testimony must
be taken by the commissioners. It is
not to be expected that the people who
pay railroad rates and the people who
make them, will agree as to their rea-
sonab!eness. But when the courts have
decided upon this matter, should they
hold the rates reasonable, it would seem
that that would relieve that feature of a
maximum rate law which might be
argued to act in a confiscatory manner.
The Loud bill, regulating the carry
ing of second class mail matter through