The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-08-03
LOST IN SUPREME COURT
STATES SUIT TO COMPEL EXPRESS
INTERSTATE. BUSINESS
THE DECISION IS SWEEPING
Court Discusses All the Phases of
the Subject In an EIab-
CRATE legal Treat

The supreme court yesterday filed an
exhaustive opinion, denying the appeal OF
the state railroad and warehouse COM
mission from an adverse order of the
lower court on its effort to compel the
United States Express company to an
swer certain questions, particularly con-
corning its interstate business.
The railroad and warehouse commits
sion submitted to the respondent certain
questions regarding its business and prop
eJ ty and demanded answers.
The company did return information as
far as its business and property in this
state was concerned, but, as to Its bust
ness and property outside the state and
It's interstate business, made no answer
Therefore the state sued to compel the
respondent by mandamus to furnish the
omitted information, and the defendant
ansWeroG that it was impossible to fur
n1sh the required information.
he trial court found that, while 1t was
not possible for the defendant to furnish
the information with accuracy, 1t was
and is possible to make answer to the
questions with approximate accuracy.
The court, in discussing this point, says:
ut is true that the evidence tends
TO snow that to furnish all of the desired
information would involve the eXamina-
ton of some 25,000.0 coo of way bills which
would occupy the attention Of thirty ex-
perts for at least a year, and then the
Information would be only approximate.
But In cases where the state has the
legal right to call upon companies or
corporations for information as to their
business they cannot be permitted to de-
termine for themselves whether they will
answer or not for the reason that it is
not possible for them to do so. 1t is
their duty in such cases to answer can
d1dly so far as reasonably possible and
state the facts which they claim excuse
them from answering more fully.
Any other rule would lead to abuses
ara eVasions not to be tolerated.
The court holds also that the express
company Is not a corporation under the
state law, and therefore has no more
opllgauons to the state than a private
INDIVIDUAL doing business as a common
carrier
On this point the court holds that If
1t is a corporation the state has a full
1lght TO inquire as to all of us business
Out, II 1t is a partnership existing by
contract between it's members the state
mas no more right over it than over an
INDIVIDUAL doing business as a common
carrier.
AS common carrier, its business is
aHected with public interest. and there
reputation but the court holds that the
relator mad no legal right to demand of
the defendant information as to its bust
ness outside the state or it's Interstate
BUSINESS, except SO far as the information
was necessary to enable the reIator to dis
charge its duties as to the defendants
BUSINESS within the state. Syllabus:
Ihls is an action to compel by man.
oanfus the respondent to answer certain
questions as to its business, propounded
to 1T by the relator Held:
|. Where the state has the legal right
through It's officers to call upon cornora :
. tons or companies for. information az fo
tnelr business, they cannot be pernitted
20 determine for themselves whether theU
VIII answer or not, on the ground that
II Is not possible for them to do so ~
IS their duty in such cases to answer can
dldiy so far as reasonably possible and
state s Iacts which they claim excuse them
Ao Go not answering more fully.
Ihat the defendant is not a como
poratlon, subject to the visitorial mower Of
the state, but partnership engaged in
the state in the business of comIno IN
carrier. "a common
j. That the relator has the legal right
70 exact from the defendant as such car
fieI' information as to all of its Dronertv
ana business within the state, but not az
10 It's property out of the state nor &c 10
us lntestate business w ~
Inc opinion is written by Chief Justice