The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1899-07-07

hibits and testimony before the COM
mission shall all be receivable in evil
dence and shall constitute the record in
the case"
| On this proposition, as well as upon
the claim respecting delays, there can
be no doubt that the governor is clearly
and positively wrong.
To the objection that delays will re-
suit from permitting relegation of the
matters to the railroad commission, it
may be answered that any rule, which,
at the same time. precludes the taking
of testimony by the court, would be an
act of oppression. Cases will necessarily
arise, when court must readily per-
ceive that, with additional evidence, an
order might be sustained where other
wise it must fall. Again, it might be
shown to the court that the order would,
| in operation, be attended with great in
Justice to the common carrier In
either case, there should be an opportu-
nifty to prevent injustice. All human
instrumentalities are at best falllble.
Commissions will sometimes make grave
mistakes in the reception or exclusion
of evidence; the parties themselves may
have failed to cover some important
point. The bill would have afforded
-
borne in mind that such an investlga-
ton should not be received in the light
of two hostile litigants seeking an
advantage in law suit. 1t is rather a
public inquiry by an impartial public
functionary into the reasonableness OF
a tariff of rates. The complaint is not
required to have any personal interest
in the matter And, under the law of
1897. the commission may institute an
investigation upon it's own motion.
The state cannot afford to exact an I'M
reasonable low rate as it would result
to it's own disadvantage. The governor
has certainly magnified the evils which
he suggests. 1t may well be doubted
whether Judge Brown, or any "com-
petent practitioner, would be able to
coincide in the view that the provisions
of the bill "seem especially calculated
to further delays" To the calm, dis
passionate mind, they would rather sug-
gest wise precaution against injustice
to either party to the controversy,
All that remains of the governors OBJ
iections is that the amendment should
have been applied to the repeal section
But it is clear that it should not have
been applied to that alone. In any
event it should have been applied to
section %. Whether or not it should
have been applied to both sections is an
open question. The procedure pre-
scribed in the amendment proposed a
new and radical change in the practice
Was it not better to proceed cautiously
and apply it first to that section, which,
as thus amended, in the judgment of
the railroad commission, would best
serve their purpose? The amendment
was clearly good one as far as it went,
even if it didn't go far enough. 1t was
undoubtedly all we have secured from
the last legislature. 1t was long step
in the right direction, and, as Gen.
Becker says, much would have been
gained if the bill had become law.
The Herald believes that Gov. Lind
did wrong in taking the action that he
did without submitting the law ques-
lions involved to the attorney general
and without consulting the members of
the railroad commission who drafted
the bill and were thoroughly familiar
with it's provisions, its purposes and its
legal effect. At least, under these Cir
cumstances, the experience and advise
of the railroad commission should not
have been ignored.
In view of all the facts there can be
no possible doubt that the governors
failure to sign the bill was a serious
mistake.