The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1899-07-06

4
facie case presented in the Court below
by means Of the order Of the Commits
sion." 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
or contiscatory. 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-
ciate the immense advantage of going
into Court with a. prima facie case, in
stead of being called upon to estab-
lish the case by affirmative evi.
dence, particularly in 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. It 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 sec
ton as it now stands. Now Senator,
let me ask you in all candor, why
was this left out! Did you realize that
: l. 11ck ~
duced the bill? Would you have intro
duced it, knowing that it was left out2
Would you have voted for this amend
ment with the knowledge that the effect
OF it 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 l have right to ask
and do ask of you. But this is not by
any means the sole reason why l omit
ted to sign Senate File "a, although it
seems to me that any candid man would
peratively demanding that it should not
have my approval. ~
recommended in my message that
on hearing should be made and con-
stituted the record on appeal; This was
for the sole purpose of expediting mat
delays resorted to by the railroad COM
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 amendment, Sem
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 the case before it in it's
own way than send a 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 law, the first
thing that the railroad company would
have done upon report being filed in
the District Court, would have been tC
make innumerable motions, all Il 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 Commits.
sion might be called upon or it might in
its own discretion rehear and reconside,
all the questions ''involved in or con
nected with it's order or requirement.
to enforce which the petition was filed
such rehearing to be had adupon alldi
tional evidence in connection with the
whole record filed with the petition, az
above provided, and may thereupon
make and file in the case with its repor
and return Of evidence taken, al
amended or supplemental order, which
shall then be substituted for the origina
order or requirement Of the Commits
sion" When this amended or supple
mental order was brought in, it would
Of course, be subject to the same powe
of the court to be recommitted, and 8,
on without limit. Now, although
realize that you are not a lawyer, i
seems to me that when you conside
these facts, especially if you will tax
the trouble to confer with some compe
tent practitioner, or say Judge Brown
you will see that I am correct in savin
that these provisions seem especiall
} calculated to further delays You viii
also observe that these are very differen
provisions from those that recommend
ed and this subject was not new to me
l had it up in all it's phases when
member Of the Committee on Interstat
and Foreign Commerce of the House q
Representatives, and then arrived a
the same conclusions which guided m
action in this matter. ID
You criticise me for not consultin
: with the Attorney General. VIII
should 1? Would you ask anybody
advice upon a plain proposition whe1
your duty was clear? But I make thi
suggestion to you. You are at ibert
to submit this letter to the Attorne
General and take his views upon tn
questions which I have discussed.
am surprised, in view of your expe
, rience in the senate and the judgme1
! which you entertained and expressed c
+ the majority of your colleagues, thu
, the fact that this bill was permitted 1
. go through without opposition was nj