The times., 1898-08-05

u. So that it furnishes a satisfactory
statement of the law so far as it has been
settled up TO thespresent time.
There has been thus far. no ruling de-
termining the particular manner in which
the courts shall examine into the reason
abeness of rates that have been fixed by
the legislature. In lS4 U. s.. ass, Chicago
VS.. Minnesota, the court reversed the Or
der Of the State court, which had refused
to order reference to take testimony |
upon a petition and answer in mandamus
proceedings (p. AD, and held the parties
Were entitled to5 an Investigation by ju-
dicial machinery Justice Miller in his
concurring opinion, declared that the
proper mode of judicial relief against the
| tariff there established by a commission
was by bill in chancery. and that until
| the judiciary had been appealed to to de-
| clare the rates void, they must be sub
| mitted to both by the carrier and the par
! ties with whom he deals.
! In several of the cases, the cases were
| determined in the lower courts upon de-
murrer admitting the allegations of the
| complainant; and in others upon agree
ment of facts. In l43 u. s. 3iS, Chica-
| go V. Wellman, there was q trial by
| jury at which an agreed statement of
| facts was presented. and two witnesses
| were also presented both in behalf of
| the railroad company, one being its traf-
| fic manager and the other it's treasurer
! Upon this testimony and the agreement
/ and that alone. the company asked for
an instruction that the law was uncon-
| stitutional, which was refused by the
| court
Justice Brewer Is Cited
| Upon appeal. the Supreme Court, speak
ing by Justice Brewer, said:
"Can 1t be- under these circumstances,
that this court erred in peremptorily re-
fusing TO instruct the jury that an act
fixing maximum rate az two cents per
| mile is unconstitutional? Is the validity
| of law of this nature dependent upon
the opinion of two witnesses, however
well qualified TO testify? Must court and
| jury accept their opinions as a finality?
| Must il be declared as matter of law
| that a reduction of rates necessarily di-
minisies income? May It not be possi-
blended does not all experience sug
gest the probability-that a reduction of
| rates will increase the amount of busi-
| ness. and, therefore, the earnings? AT
any rate. must the court assume that il
has no such effect; and ignoring all 9TH
er considerations, hold, as matter of law.
that reduction of rates necessarily d.
| minishes its earnings?
| In ST. Louis r. r. V. GILL; 156 u. s..
651, which was an action brought by an
individual against railroad company for
refusing to accept the reduced fare fixed
| by the legislature. the company filed
| special pleas. which were overruled on
demurrer. Il then offered 70 Introduce
| evidence that the rates were unreasona-
bly, low as to one OF its branches. in or
der TO show they would not enable the
company TO pay its interest or earn any
thing on its caplal stock; which offer
was rejected by the court; and verdict
was entered against the company.
I'm the Supreme Court 1t was he'd that
although this offer of testimony was
properly rejected. because not applicable
to the entire line ofethe road in Arkan-
sas, yet there had been no proper finding
upon all the facts necessary TO justify the
court in overthrowing the statutory rates
| as unreasona Bile. as the verdict had been
rendered upon the admissions in the de-
murrers to the SPECIAL pleas. and the opin-
ion concludes, Upon the whole we do not
feel warranted, by all that appears In the
record, in declaring invalid act of the
Legislature of Arkansas which on Its
face appears to be legitimate exercise
of power. and which, has been shown by
clear and satisfactory evidence to op-
crate unjustly and vunreasonably in
constitutional sense, against the plaintiff
| in error. ~
169 u s.. the question of the constitution
ality of an act Of Nebraska fixing the
rates OF railroad charges within that
State was presented by suits in equity, in
which great mass of testimony was
taken, to enable the court to ascertain
whether the enforcement of that act
would deprive the several railway COM
panies of the right 10 receive just COM
| pensation for the services rendered
at thus appears that the courts. in me
| form or other have never consented TO
decide this important inquiry in any of
the cases brought before them, except
upon testimony appropriate to the form
of the particular action, and have refused
to make any decision where such testi-
mony had not been taken.
I'm this condition of the law I am OF
the opinion that nothing which can be
properly regarded as testimony is now
before the court sufficient TO justify II in
considering, much less in sustaining. the
contention of the defendant COMPANY that
the clause in question is unconstitutional
because of the unreasonabieness and In
sufficiency of the rates. to an extent thai
denies TO the company the just compen-
sation to which it is entitled
The complainsnts in their bill relied
upon the explicit language of a statute
regularly passed by Congress and ap-
proved by the Executive. There can be
no doubt the courts must regard statute
SO enacted as prinla facie constitutional
) law. AS was said by Chief Justice Waite
in 81 L. S. 123. Mum VS.. Illinois, Every
statute is presumed to be constitutional.
The courts ought not to declare one un-
constitutional unless it is clearly SO. If
there is any doubt the expressed will OF
the legislature should be sustained"
Reference to the AfHdayits
The charge that the present act is un-
constitutional was first presented by the
defendant in its answer, which was ac-
companied by number of ex parte affi-
, davits made by officers and servants OF
| the company, some of them giving their
opinions that the departments with which
} they Were respectively connected are vel
and economically managed. Two expert
accountants expressed the opinion thai
the books of the company as examined
) | by them appeared to have been kept with
care and business methods. Still others
I basng their Information upon these en-
: tries, name amounts which they say cor
: rectly exhibit the average expenses of tn,
/ company. within certain periods.
o Still others furnish estimates, baset
{ upon the same entries. giving their judg
v ment of the amount it had cost the com
: pany within two periods. to furnish ser
vice for a telephone Instrument. Finally
the president of the company makes af
fidavttS based as TO many of the state
ments upon the books, which refers t
q each of the topics presented by the othe