Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1899-07-07


sceedings. to show that It Is not, Ths
burden OF proof was therefore upon this
respondent carrier Great Northern.
Rail road Comp to overcome a prima
facie case presented in Lie Court below
by means of. the order Of the Commits
sion" I have no hesitancy in saying
that but for this statutory provision the
Judgment rendered in the STEVENSON
case could not and would not have been
rendered by our Supreme Court The
decision, as you will observe, is simply
to the effect that the record does not show
the rates established are unreasonable
OF confscatory. In other words. the
Court simply held that the railroad
company had failed to overcome the
determination Of the commission, which
the statute said and which the.court
said was prima facie just and reason
able. realize that it is difficult and
practically impossible to make one who
has had no experience at the bar appre.
clate the immense advantage Of going
into Court with a prima facie case, in
stead of being called upon to estab-
'llsh: the. case by affirmative evil
dence, particularly i'll matters of this
character. If it were incumbent upon
the state to establish the reasonable
ness or unreasonableness of the rate by
affirmative evidence, such AS would be
admissible in Court, it would be next to
impossible under existing conditions to
do SO. 1t certainly could not be done
without the cooperation of railroad ex-
perts. Notwithstanding these facts, the
proposed amendment to Section ~, by
Senate File No. "A, leaves out this
vitality important provision of the SEQ
ton as it now stands. Now Senator,
let me ask you in all candor, why
was this left out? Did you realize that
it had been left out when you intro
duced the bill? Would you have intro
duced it, knowing that it was left out?
Would you have voted for this amend
ment with the knowledge that the effect
OF 1t would be to shift the burden of
proof from the shoulders of the railroad
company to the side of the producer
and the state? A candid answer to
these questions I have right to ask
and do ask of you. But this is not by
any means the sole reason why I omit
ted to sign Senate File "a, although it
regard this not only sufficient but i'm
peratively demanding that it should not
have my approval.
the record made before the Commission
on a hearing should be made and con-
stituted the record on appeal. This was
for the sole purpose of expediting mat
ters and saving time. The protracted
delays resorted to by the railroad COM
panies on all proceedings against them
is, as you we'll realize, the worst feature
in the administration of the law that
we have to contend against. The pro-
visions OF Senate File "a, instead of
tending to curtail and prevent DELAYS.
seem especially calculated to further
them. The proposed amendments, Sen
ate File No. "a, provides that the Com
mission should report to the Court the
papers and testimony taken before it
and further, that if the Court "shall
think it needful, that additional evil
dence shall be taken or further INQUIRIES
be prosecuted, it shall recommit the
matter to the Commission to prose-
cute such inquiry" Now, if you know
anything about legal procedure. YOU
know that it would be infinitely more
expeditions for the District Court to try
and dispose Of tho case before it in it's
own way than send portion of it back
for rehearing or for the taking of addi-
tional evidence before another tribunal.
You also know or realize that if this
provision had become q law, the first
thing that the railroad company would
have done upon report being fled in
the District Court, would have been to
make innumerable motions, all of
which take not less than 10 days. notice.
to have this question and that question
and the other recommitted to the Com
mission for the taking of further evi-
dence. But this is not all, nor the worst
feature OF this provision. The proposed
amendment provides that the commfs.
sion might be called upon or it might in
its own discretion rehear and reconsider
all the questions involved in or con
necttd with ite order Or: requirement..
to enforce which the petition was fled.
such rehearing to be had adupon a1ldi-
tional evidence In connection with the
whole record fled with the petition. a.
above provided, and may thereupon.
make and He in the case with it's report
and return of evidences taken, nm
amended or supplemental order. which
shall then be substituted for the original
order or requirement of the Commis-
sion." When this amended or supple
mental order was brought in, it would,
of course, be subject to the same power
Of the court to be recommitted. and 50
on without limit. Now, although I
realize, that you :.1e a,,~ a lawyer, it
seems Ito me that when you co:.sidsx
these facts, especially If you VIII take
the trouble to confer with some CONNIE
tent practitioner, or say Judge Brown.
You will $50 that, I am correct in saving
that these provisions seem especially
calculated to further delays. You will!
also Observe that these are very different
provisions from those that recommend
ed and this subject was net new to me-
I had il up in all it, phases when a.
member Of the COMMITTEE on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Of the House of
Representatives, and I then arrived At
the same conclusions which guided nv
action inethis matter. -
You -critioiso me for not consulting
with the Attorney; General. Why,
should IA Would you ak anybody's
advice upon Z plain proposition whore
your duty was claaf7 Bnt mako this
snggeAtiou to- you. You are ct liberty
4 ~. -