The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-06-29

ed A trial in the district court upon an
appeal of that character is undoubtedly
the most important feature in proceed
ing under the law, for upon the record a S
there made the case will be reviewed by
the supreme court and eventually in the
supreme court of the. United States if
court. This trial in the district court
upon an appeal Is now virtually trial
de novo, as suggested in my message,
and it was this section that l recon-
mended should be amended 50 that it
would not be necessary to go over again
in the district court the same ground
that had been travelled before the COM
mlssloners, for a retrial upon new evil
dence necessarily consumes more time.
Senate File No. "a did not assume to
correct this defect, as you appear to
think, but steps in to amend section 22,
page. 26 of the pamphlet, which simply
relates to the enforcement OF the orders
or decisions of the commission. These
orders or decisions are of two kinds: Ad-
ministrative orders and final orders or
decisions involving the ratemaking pow
er, when such orders have not been ap-
regard to the latter class of orders,
where the railroad company had the
right of appeal If they saw fit, it IS
well settled principle of law that where
an individual or corporation has Htigat-
ed question before a tribunal upon the
merits and had the right Of appeal from
the order or decision of such tribunal to
the district court and omitted to eXer-
else it, it cannot subsequently raise any
question as to the merits of the order
or decision when it is sought to secure
enforcement of such order CT decision in
the courts. 1t stands
UPON THE SAME FOOTING,
when not appealed FROM as a judgment
of the district court rendered upon an ap-
peal under the provisions of Subdivision
D, OF section 15. Therefore, when such an
order comes up for enforcement in the
district court, no question can be raised
as to its validity or its reasonableness,
provided the company had due notice
Hence the only class of orders or deciS-
ions that can be litigated under the pro-
visions of section %, which you sought to
amend by Senate File a. as the law now
stands, are those relating to administra-
tive proceedings.
You will observe by Subdivision B, of
section Is, that on the hearing of the ap-
peal provided for In that section the
record of said commission shall be .prima
facie evidence of the matters therein
stated" The same provision exists in
section % in regard to proceedings for
the enforcement of the orders or de-
cisions of the commission under that
section; It is provided commencing on
page 2S), upon a trial of such case, the
findings of fact of said commission, as
set forth in it's record, shall be prima
facie evidence of the matters therein
stated. l have underscored these pro-
visions in the pamphlet which l send
you These two provisions are the most
important features regulating the prac-
tice under the railroad act They have
the effect of throwing the burden Of
proof upon the railroad company to show
that the decisions of the commission IS
wrong in case of an appeal under section
10, and likewise that the order or de-
c1sion was wrong or. unjustifiable in pro-
ceedings for it's enforcement under sec
ton %. On this point let me call your
attention to the
LANGUAGE OF JUSTICE CAVITY,
N. W Reporter 72, page lis, who, after
quoting this provision says: ''Then the
burden is on the railroad company to
Si,ov,o, show that the rates fixed by the com
mission are unreasonable" Justice Col
Inns, page 73 (same volume), commenting
on the same provision in the statute
said: Here we find that by Legislative
enactment an order of the commission
hX1ng and prescribing a tariff on
rates must be deemed and taken in ali
OF the courts of our state as prima facie
evidence that the tariff so fixed and pre-
Scrlbed is equal and reasonable; the onus
being thus fixed upon the appealing car
rler, In all our legal tribunals and in all
proceedings to show that it is not. The
burden Of proof was therefore uDon thie
respondent carrier Great Northern Rail-
road company to overcome prima fa-
Sie { case presented in the court below
by means of the order of the commits
SION L have no hesitancy in saving
that but for this statutory provision the
Judgment rendered in the Stevenson
rendered by our supreme court The de-
cls1on. as you will observe, is simply to
the effect that the record does not show
the rates established are unreasonabIe
or coniscatory In other words. the
court simply held that the railroad com
pany had failed to overcome the de-
termination of the commission, which
the statute said and which the court
said was prima facie just and reason
abie. realize that it is difficult and
practlcally impossible to make one who
mas naQ no experience at the bar appre-
ciate the immense advantage of going
into court with prima facie case in
stead OF being CALLED upon to establish
the case by affirmative evidence. par
ticularly in matters of this Character
If 1t were incumbent upon the state to
establish the reasonableness or unrea-
evidence, such as would be admissible
In court, 1t would be
NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE
under existing conditions to do so II
certa1nly could not be done without the
cooperation of railroad experts Not
- these es, faSts St the proposed
No. "A, leaves out this vitality Important
provision of the section as 1t now stands.
6o1 Mo"' senator, let me ask you in all can
dor; why was this left out? Did Won
realize that it had been left out when
you introduced the bill? Would Won
have nay Int introduced W; it knowing that it was
lett out? Would you have voted for
this amendment with the knowledge thai
Ine 51 eIIect OF 1t would be to shift the bur
den of proof from the shoulders of the
ducer and the state? A candid answer
to these questions I have a right to aslt
and do ask of you. But this is not bI1
any means the sole reason why I omit
ted to sign Senate File "a althollen II
seems to me that any candid man WouId
regard this not only sufficient but i'm
peratively demanding that 1t shonId nn+
have my approval. -io'
recommended in my message that the
record made before the commission on a
nearing should be made and constitnted
the record on appeal This was for 1ha
sole purpose of eXpediting matters and
saving time. The protracted DELAYS "a
sorted TO by the railroad companies on
all proceedings against them is. as Won
well realize, you
THE WORST FEATURE
IN the administration of the law that we
nave to contend against. The provisions
OF senate File a. instead of tending to
curIall and prevent delays, seem esae-
cialIy calculated to further them. The
proposed amendment, Senate File No. %
provides that the commission should re-
port to the court the papers and testi
mony taken before 1t and further. that
II the court shall think it reedful that
addluonal Inquiries be prosecuted, II
snail recommit the matter to the COM
mission to prosecute such inquiry" Now.
eedure, you know that it would be in
hnitely more expeditions for the district
court to try and dispose of the case he
1ore 1t IN Its own way than send nor
ton of it back for rehearing or for the
taxing OF additional evidence before an
other tribunal: You also know or real
lze that If this provision had become a
law, the first thing that the railroad
company would have done upon re
port being filed In tho dictr;o+ -