The Irish standard., 1899-07-01
ant to them,

1899.
ant to them.
In proceedings under the first class of
questions, viz: Those that involve the
rate making power and the prevention
of determinations, the railroad conf
pany has the right of appeal to the Dis
trict Court from the determination of
the Commissioners. See Subdivision d
of Section Is of the Act. page u of
the pamphlet which send you here
with). In the other class of cases,
which relate only to administrative reg
ulations. there is no appeal from the
action of the Commissioners to the Dis
trict Court. The propriety of their de-
termination can only be inquired into
upon u suit instituted for the enforce
mcnt of the Commissioners decision.
See the case cited, al Mimi. page 1876.
The "Steenerson case" which is the
most important case that we have had
i'll our courts under the law up to the
present time, was decided upon re-
view of the action taken by the District
Court upon the trial of an appeal taken
from the Commissioners decision pre-
scribing lower rates. Sec the statement
of the case by Judge CAVITY on page ia.
Vol. IL, Northwestern Reporter. He
says: After summoning the railway
and having hearing, as pro-
vided by the statute, the Commission
made an order reducing rates on grain
on all the lines Of the railway company
within the state. From this order the
railway company appealed to the Dis
trict Court and after a hearing on the
appeal, the Court reversed the order
OF the Commission. From the order
of the Court the Attorney General APP
peals to this Court, etc." This appeal
was taken under Subdivision d, Section
Is, just cited. A trial in the District
Court upon an appeal Of that character
is undoubtedly the most important fea-
ture in a proceeding under the law. for
upon the record as there made the case
will be reviewed by the Supreme Court
and eventually i'll the Supreme Court of
the United States, If writ of error is
taken to the latter Court. This trial in
the District Court upon an appeal is
now virtually a trial de novo, as 1 sug-
gested in my message, and it was this
section that recommended should be
80 that it would not be neces-
sary to go over again in the District
Court the same ground that had been
Travelled before the Commissioners, for
Il retrial upon new evidence necessarily
consumes more time.
Senate File No. 81 did not assume to
correct this defect, as you appear to
think, but steps in to amend Section %,
page 26 Of the pamphlet, which simply
relates to the enforcement of tho orders
OR decisions of the Commission. These
orders or decisions are Of two kinds: Adj
orders and final orders or
decisions involving the rate making
power when such orders have not been
from to the District Court. In
regard to the latter class of orders,
where the railroad company had tho
right of appeal if they saw fit, it is n
we'll settled principle of law that where
all individual or corporation has liti-
gated question before tribunal upon
the merits and had the right of appeal
from the order or decision of such tri-
bunal to tho District Court and omitted
to exercise 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 or decision in the courts. 1t
stands upon the same footing, when not
appealed from, as IL judgment of the
District Court rendered upon an appeal
under the provisions of Subdivision D
of Section Is. Therefore, when such an
order comes up for enforcement in tho
District Court, no question can be
raised as to its validity or it's reason
ableness, provided tho company had
due notice. Hence the only class of or
ders or decisions that can be litigated
under the provisions of Section 90,
which you sought to amend by Senate
File "a, as the law now stands are those
relating to administrative proceedings
You will observe by Subdivision B of
Section Is that on the hearing of the
appeal provided for III that section "the
record of said Commission shall be
prima facie evidence of the matters
therein stated" The same provision
exists in Section 90 in regard to pro-
ceedings for the enforcement of the Or
ders or decisions of the Commission
under that section. It is provided
commencing on Page 26), "upon a
trial of such case, the findings of fact of
said Commission, as set forth in its rec
ord, shall be prima facie evidence of the
matters therein stated" have under
scored these provisions in the pamphlet
which send you. These two provisions
are the most important features regu-
lating the practice under the railroad
act. They have the effect of throwing
the burden of proof upon the railroad
company to show that the decision of
the Commission is wrong in case of an
appeal under Section IS, and likewise
that the order or decision was wrong or
unjustifable in proceedings for it's en-
forcenent under Section 90. On this
point let me call your attention to the
language of Justice CAVITY, N. w. Re-
porter u, page 7l5, who after quoting
this provision says: Then tho burden
is Ola the railroad company to show that
the rates fixed by the Commission are
unreasonable" Justice Collins, page