The Saint Paul globe., 1900-06-14
Gan ORDER JOINT RATES.
NEW ULM COAL CASE DECIDED IN
FAVOR OF RAILROAD COM
MISSION
RATE THAT IS REASONABLE
In View of the Circumstances That
the Courts Mny Consider Af-
feeling Necessities of
the Case.

! Yesterday in the supreme court two
cases of long standing In litigation Were
disposed of. The New Ulm rate case
brought by the railroad and warehouse
commission against the Minneapolis &.
st Louis railroad was to compel the cor
poration to make joint through 1ate on
coal from New Ulm to the head of the
lakes. The two roads failed to agree upon
a rate. and, as the St. Louis road was
least inclined to make concessions. suit
was brought perhaps more than anything
else to test the powers and jurisdiction
OF the commission. The decision is i'm
portant, as it holds that the railroad COM
i'9hy must obey the order 0f the commits
sion. The syllabus is a follows:
state Of Minnesota, ex rel. Railroad and
aenouse CommisS. on, r Spondent vs.
minneapolis " st. Louis Railtoad Com
Pahy ct al, defendant Minneapolis &
81. Louis Railroad Company. apnallarJ
SSliabuS-l. On the hearing in district
court upon an application for a writ of
uan1amus to compel common carr Ter
10 CD@y ana comply with an Cr6er fix n4
u tarH OF rates made by the state RAILROAD
and warehouse commission the carrier is
entitled 70 an examination of matters Of
tact IN which evidence de novo MAJ ia
iSken. Under the provisions of c. s.
loj4' section S93, such an order is not
conclusive as to the reaeonab.rness of the
talih IN the absence Of IN appeal thci e.
2 lie d, following jacobsen vs.. Rail
WAY company, MINI. So that su h
par OF Laws 1885, chapter 81, as author
iNS9 Said commission to establish by Oidcr
goluI through rates for the transporta-
uon Of freight over any two or moe
connecting lines of railway within his
state, and to compel Obedience thernto
does rot violate any Of the coost;tufionsi
provisions, federal or state
=. Iie!d, mat when eS mating the cost
oI operating railway per ton of 1reiCht
per mile OF carriage for the purpose Oi
ueteI mining the TeasOnabl ness of a "a irf
OF rates hXed by the commits, ion If i nr-
I0r 70 take INTO considera ion an amount
OF the earnings which has been 9pDr0-
pEiated and paid out as dividends co
STOCK SHARES of such railway
T. W hen considering the 1eason3 b,ene g
OF Such rates the commission and tba
courts are justified in takine. inf1 ,t,,o
S!uSfatIon what is known as a 'conmer-
Cjei ~ necessity, namely, the applicati ton
St pIIHclples Wnen fixing rates which are
LOICtu upon common alrerS oY various
cCHu.tons and circumstances and are m
IN IN mon p dctlce among them, a business
pomGy WHich actuates and influences the
carriers themselves to disregard a ruIa
OF strict comparison a stIict eGusl fy
d as Pel"een bulk, or weight. or value. as
wen a as ai5janee 5Jai Of carriage
D. u. ,. 1894, section S9l subdivision q.
sSctlCn W. subdivision A and Laws 56q5
cnapter u, section 8. subdivision G. nro
vide that the tariff of rates made hv
cn5,,t, CnT commission M SHAH be taken by the
courts as p!lma facia evidence that such
LatlI Is equal and re9s Jnabla, the burden
being on the carrier 70 show to the con-
Held, on the proofs in this action.
whether the rule laid down in S. ee9er.
son vs. Great Northern Railway Com
P5G % MLin 5oS, as basis for ascer-
tanning what are reasonable rates. he an
Pled, or tie rule-of greater value to de-
Ihemdant hnda &c car r ieT-announced in Smyth vs..
not rebut and overcome the nrima facio Gio
character Of the tariff in que ton, whiI h
was "a up upon coal In car lead lots
o, CCuLts Cannot assume that the cost
OF oL reproduction of a line of railway, or
Itiat the present. as compared with the
oil oTlglnal cost Of construction, is the
amount OF stock and bonds OUTSTANDING
or that 1t is what the road has cost Iir,
to to the time of the trial Judgment af.
III ii'eu' Collins, j.