The Topeka state journal., 1905-05-06
So Says Attorney General Moody
in an Opinion.
MAY APPEAL TO COURTS
Details May Be Carried Out by
Interstate Commission.
But the Courts Have the Last
Say in the Matter.
Legislatures Can Do the Same
in State Transportation.

washington, Nay Attorney Gen
oraI Moody has submitted to the SEN
ate committee on interstate commerce
an opinion regarding the right Of con-
sress to fix freight rates.
The opinion in its main features fol-
lows:
Hon. Stephen B. Elkins, Chairman
Committee on Interstate Commerce,
United States Senate.
Sir:-I have the honor to acknowl-
edge the receipt Of your letter request
on interstate commerce. my opinion on
certain questions of law.
Your letter, supplemented by oral
communication calls upon me TO con-
slider the governmental power to regu-
late the operations Of railroads, espec-
ially in the respect Of fixing rates for
transportation, by whom that power, SO
far as 1t exists in the national govern
ment, may be exercised constitutional
ly, ana what limits to the power, If
any, are prescribed by the constitution.
After great consideE eEations it was set
tied in the group OF cases commonly
called the Granger cases, that there is
a governmental power to regulate the
operations OF railroads acting as com
mon carriers and, as a part Of such
regulation, to prescribe the maximum
rates which they may charge in the
future for the services which they shall
and that the power is vested in, and
may be exercised by, the legislative
branch OF the government.
These cases were concerned with the
regulation Of rates by the legislature of
the state for transportation beginning
and ending within the state. The prin-
cipIe announced in them was affirmed
in Ruggles V. Illinois (1O8 u. S, $3.50,
and Illinois Central r. r. Co. v. The
People Of the State Of Illinois (108 U.
s., BAD, and has been adopted as the
rule Of decision in many subsequent
opinions of the supreme court and of
the highest courts Of the states, and
although originally established over
dissent, is now acquiesced in by all as
the settled law Of the land
Division of Power.
Under the division of the government
tai power made by the constitution of
the United States the authority to reg
ulate the charges Of railroads so far as
those charges are made for traffic
which is exclusively within the states,
resides in the legislatures of the states.
and so far as they are made for other
traffic, resides in congress. This divis-
ion of power is fundamental, has been
recognized in all the cases.
In the earlier eases before the court
the legislatures had prescribed, specifi-
cally, in the law the maximum rates to
be observed in the future. Legislatures
obviously. however. can deal with such
y
Their large and changing membership p,
infrequent and limited sessions, and
procedure designed for legislation rath-
er than administration, were i'll adapt
ed to duties so largely administrative
as those of fixing and enforcing rates.
Laws therefore, were passed by many
of the states enaeting that rates should
be impartial and reasonable, and Great
ing small body often called a railroad
commission, to which was intFusted.
other n0VVnTa 0F F1n
duty of fixing rates in retail in conform
lty with the rule declared in the law.
The consttuhOnality Of the grant of
such power to a commission was speed
lily drawn in question before the courts.
It was claimed that the laws violated
the well-settled principle that legisla-
tive power must be exercised by the
legislature itself and can not be deIegat-
ed to any other body But the courts
nave held, that where the legislature
has enacted that railway rates shall be
impartial and reasonable, the duty OF
executing this law and determining the
rates for the future in detail In con-
1Ormity with it. may be conferred con
stttuhonally upon an administrative
body, and that a grant of such power
is not a delegation Of the legislative
authority.
Rights Of States.
These cases affirm the right of a state
legislature to confer the power in cues
ton upon state commission. No rea-
son has been advanced, and none can he
- perceived, whoy the same principles
would not control in the case of a grant
by congress Of q like power to a com
mission over interstate TRANSPORTATION
The supreme court in many cases has
recognized the propriety of the large
qelegaton Of powers of regulation over
interstate railroads conferred upon the
interstate commerce commission nv tht
act Of February 4, 1887. The right d
congress to confer upon a commission
the rate-making power was distinctly
presented to the court in the case of tht