The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-26

effective. If it be true that the
rate making power cannot be delegated
to the commission, it cannot be dele
gated to any other body; and it follows,
necessarily, that rate making must be
done by congress. The way to have this
important constitutional question deter
mined is to enact the Dolliver bill into
a law; and the test will come speedily.
Appeal Proposition Doubtful.
The federal courts do not sit to try
moot questions, and can scarcely be
expected to pass upon the constitution
atty of an act of congress in advance
Of al attempt to practically enforce it;
neither is it consistent to ask congress
to enact a law embodying an expressed
doubt Of its own validity, and provid-
ing for it's review by a coordinate
branch of the government, before it a
be made effective. Nor can an appeal
be taken from an order Of the COM
mission, fixing a rate, to the courts.
The act Of the commission would be
legislative; and no appeal can be taken
from legislative action to a Judicial
tribunal. Whether a law providing for
such an appeal would be valid is more
than doubtful, and the first question
which would arise would be the consti-
~tutionality of the law providing for
such an appeal. The great danger of
establishing a precedent for an appeal
from legislative action, il it can be
done under any circumstances, is mani
fest, as by such means the functions
of the legislative department. would be
suspended and it's authority practically
nullifed. The position taken by the
opponents of this legislation, who do
not hesitate to 60 to any length to
establish the independence Of railroads
of all government control, emphasizes
the necessity for prompt and positive
action. Judicial supervision and con-
struction of a legislative act must be
preceded by two things, the actual pas
sage of the act and a bona fide attempt
to enforce it. The congress enacts laws,
assuming to possess the power and the
! right to do 80. It can hardly afford to
assume Or admit the unconstitutionality
of it's own acts in advance of a judicial
decision. The people look to it for a
law which will accomplish something.
Let the bill be passed; and let the ques-
ton of its constitutionality be met when
it arises in a genuine attempt to en-
force it. Railroads nave no right to
ask that laws which affect their inter.
ests should be open to question, except
by ordinary methods; the same methods
open to private citizens.
No Need Of Appeal Provision.
The rights Of the railroads and the
people, are now defined with sufficient
accuracy to enable the courts to make
the Dolliver-Hepburn bill practically eff
fective. It was held in the case OF
Railway company VS.. Dey, 35 Fedora
Reporter 879, that railroad companies
have the right to charge and receive
a compensation which will enable then
to pay the cost of the service rendered
interest on their bonds, and some divi
dend. A rate which does not enable
which enables them to do this is no
confscatory. Here, then, is a test a
to the constitutionality and validity O
: any rate made by the commission. I
is a judicial test, which may be speedil,
applied, if a speedy decision is desired
l A rate made by the commission unde
the Dolliver bill is a law; as it ought t
l be. If it does not afford just compen
) ~sation, measured by the above rule, it i
an unconstitutional law; and the circui
: courts Of the United States have ful
jurisdiction, and power, to SO determine
Nothing in the proposed bill limits o
assumes to restrict that power.
The same case holds that the act o
the legislature of the state Of Iowa
which authorizes the board of railroa
commissioners to make and enforce
schedule of rates for railroad charge
{! is not unconstitutional, as an attempte
! delegation of legislative power.
This. decision was made by Judg
Brewer, then circuit judge, and no,
associate justice Of the supreme cou1
Of the United States. So far as
know, it has not been overruled or crit
cized by that court.
There are other decisions which hol
that the rate-making power may be de
egated to commissions.
| State VS.. Railroad Co., 3S MINI. 20
/ People VS.. Harper, 81 III. 357.
Georgia Railroad Co. VS.. Smith, I
! Ga. 694; Tilley VS.. Savannah, etc., R
Co., 5 Fed. Rep. GAL; Hildreth VS.. Gray
ford, IS Iowa 339.
The right seems to be recognized
! Stone VS.. Turst Co., 116 U. s.. 307. n
!" case can be found wherein it has BET
le held that the power to make rates ms
not be delegated to a commission, altl
Il the point has been frequently presents
III and passed upon. It seems idle, in Il
II face Of these decisions, to urge it's u
constitutionality as a reason for not e
10 acting a law which is demanded by t.
people. .
o. The people are looking to congre
- for a law which will accomplish som
~ thing. Let it pass this bill, and let t
question of its constitutionality be m
" when it arises in a genuine attempt
enforce it.
Rate Making "systems."
We Ut is argued on behalf Of the CO
IN riers that because their traffic manage
are acuuainted with the cost of trar