Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1898-12-22
GOVERNOR LEEDY'S MESSAGE.
Tells the Legislature II Kind of Il
Railroad Bill He Wants
Passed.

TOPEKA. Dec. 21.-(SpeciaI.) Governor
Leedy's message to the legislature. which
was read in both houses this afternoon, is
as follows:
ITO the Senate and House of Represents
tives.
Although the present executive and a
ma ority of each house of the present lesis-
lature We're elected under q pledge to The
people to enact a maximum rate law, when
the time arrived for fulfilling that pledge
the menace of a judicial decision by the
highest tribunal in the land, which would
make legislative regulation of railroad
charges practically impossible, caused
many to doubt the wisdom of attempting
the promised legislation; and such differ
ence of opinion prevailed that the eXecu-
tive felt called upon TO withhold his APP
prevail from the compromise measure
finally passed.
There was then pending undetermined in
the supreme court of the United States a
case which involved the question whether,
as TO railroad legislation. the legislatures
of theoretically sovereign states should be
Reduced TO the level of city councils or
school district boards, upon the reasonable
ness, as well us the authority. OF whose
acts courts may sit in Judgment. The de-
cision of that case. announced soon after
the adjournment of the legislature. fully
| justified the fears and antlcipatiOnS of those
who deemed it futile to pass a maximum
rate bill, for il rendered such an enactment
Il mere proposal of legislation, not a law.
which must he submitted TO the federal
court for approval or rejection. The decis-
ion declared that whether the rates of
transporuon prescribed by a Legislature
are reasonable is a judicial question and
that, first, a single federal judge. and,
finally. five federal judges. may. upon that
question. reverse and hold null the deliD-
with its numerous membership. acting un-
der the same oath as the judges and calmly
celebrating for days in separate chambers;
the courts may SIT in Judgment. not merely
upon the constitutional power of the lcgis-
lature to leSislate concerning the particular
subject matter, but upon the reaSonableneSs
oil Its actS-the power to act being conceded.
AT the same time the court declined.
though urged, to lay down any definite rule
10y which. in advance of its Judgment in
each particular case. a legislature might
be able TO say whether suggested rates
would be held reasonable or not; so that
whether rates are reasonable can be de-
termined only by Il standard which must
remain unknown to every human being but
the justices of that court. save as they
may VOuchSafe to reveal il anew as each
successive law comes before them to he
destroyed. 1t follows that You can only
suggest maximum rates: you cannot PEE
scribe them. You can submit for approval
a maximum rate proposition: you cannot
eraCt a maximum rate law. However.
while the people of Kansas have Tor years
been demanding a maximum rate law, the
real essence of their demand has been the
i regulation of railroad charges: and al
though we have been deprived of the power
to redeem our pledge according to its very
letter. 1t is still our duty to do what we
can to redeem II according 10 its spirit:
and that this may be done. | have exercised
the power given me by the constitution to
convene you III SiSCial session.
Ii the reasonahleness of rates be a judi
cial. not a legislative. question, may not
courts determine upon the application Of
the people rs well as upon the application
of railroad companies If a railroad com
pany may challenge in a court OF equity
an entire schedule of rates prescribed by
the legislature. may not the state chal-
lenge in a court OF equity an entire sChes-
uie of rates prescribed by a railroad COM
pany2 And if. as held in the Nebraska
case on the decision of a motion TO modify
tine DEGREES, 4 court may. III a case brought
hy the railroads.. so mold its decree as 10
permit some rates and forbid others. can
II not do the same in a case brought by
the people? And may not a state court
exercise the same kind of judicial power
exercised by the federal courts?
"The law always has heen that railroad
companies and other common carriers were
bound to serve all persons alike for n rea-
souahle compensation. No legislature has
ever conferred upon them the right TO
make schedules of rates to be charged for
the transportation Of persons and prom
erty. which should be evidence of what are
reasonable rates. Vet il has been so long
the practice of all railroad companies 10
fix their own schedules and classiications
and 70 exact from shippers written ;Ic-
cepJtrce or prepayment Of their charges
thai II has come 10 be generally believed
that they have 4 right to do so. It Is
clearly the duty Of the legislature to pro
yiGe Tor The determination 10y public au-
thority of what are proper qualifications