The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-08

Continued from First Page.

state enactment is in harmony with that
law simply because the legislature of the
state has declared such to be the case; for
that would make the state legislature the
final judge Of the validity of its enactment,
although the constitution of the United
States and the laws made in pursuance
thereof are the supreme law of the land.
anything in the constitution or laws of any
state to the contrary Notwithstanding.
The idea that any legislature, state or
federal concusively determine for the
people and for the courts that what it en-
acts in the form of law or what it author
ICES it's agents to do, is inconsistent with the
fundamental law. is in opposition to the
theory of our institutions. The duty rests
upon the courts, federal and state-when
their jurisdiction is properly invoked-to
see to it that right secured by the su-
preme law of the land is impaired or de-
stroyed by legislation.
1t had been contended on behalf Of
the law that the state of Nebraska
could legally require local freight bust
ness to be conducted even at an actual
less. If the company earned on It's In
terstate business enough to give it just
compensation in respect of Its entire
line and all it's business, interstate and
domestic The court did not accept
this view, Justice Harlan saying:
We cannot concur in this view. In our
judgment 1t must be held that the reason
ableness or unreasonableness of rates, pre-.
scribed by state for the transportation or
persons and property wholly within Its
limits must be determined without refer
ence to the business of an interstate char
acter done by the carrier, or to the profits
deprived from that business; the state
cannot justify unreasonably low rates for
domestic transportation, considered alone
upon the ground that the carrier is earning
large profits It's interstate business, over
which, so far rates are concerned the
state has no control Nor can the carrier
justify unreasonably high rates on domestic
business upon the ground that only in that
way can it meet losses on its interstate
business.
cerned. domestic business should not be
made to bear the losses on interstate bust
ness. nor the latter losses on domestic
business. 1t is only rates for the transpor-
tation of persons and property between
points within the state which the state can
prescribe; and when 1t undertakes to pre-
scribe rates not to be exceeded by the car
rier it must do with reference exclusive
ly to what is just and reasonable be-
tween the carrier and the public in respect
of domestic business.
Reasonable Charges.
Referring to the arguments on the
two sides Of the case as to what are
reasonable charges, etc, the opinion
laid down the following:
We ho.d that the basis Of all calculations
as to reasonableness of rates to be charged
by corporation maintaining highway
under legislative sanctisn must be the fair
value of the property being used by 1t for
the convenience of the public. And in order
to ascertain that value, the original cost
of construction, the amount expended IN
permanent improvements the amount ana
market value OF its bonds and stocks, the
present as compared with the original cost
of construction. the probable earning ca
pacity of the property under any rates pre-
scribed by statute, and the sum required
to meet operating expenses are all matters
for consideration and to be given such
weight as may be just and right In the
particular case
What the company is entitled to ask is
fair return upon the value of that which
it employees for the public convenience. On
the other hand, what the public Is emitted
to demand is that no more be exacted from
It for the use of a public highway than the
services rendered by 1t are reasonably
worth.
But even upon this basis, we perceive no
ground on the record for reversing the de-
cree of the circuit court.
On the contrary, we are of the opinion
that as to most of the companies in ques-
established by the act 1898 an actual loss
in each of the years ending June 80, 1891,
1892 and 1893 and substantially no cCm en-
sation earned for the services rendered:
and that in the exceptional cases above
stated, the receipts or gains above operating
expenses of some of the companies would
have been too small to affect the general
conclusions that the act il enforced would
have deprived each of the railroad COM
panies involved in these suits Of the just
compensation secured to them by the con-
stitution. Under the evidence there is no
ground for saying the operating expenses
Of any of them were greater than neces-
sary.
Right of Appeal.