The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-12-01
STATE COURTS
MUST TRY CASE
Supreme Court Hands Down
Decision Involving Power of
Railway Commission.
CIRCUIT COURT OVERRULED
DECISION ON NARROW GROUNDS
AND MATTER NOT SETTLED.

AM VIA En- MI SE LII.
Washington, Nov. 30.-Justice Holmes
today announced the decision of the
supreme court OF the United States in
the case of the Virginia railroads versus
the State Corporation Commission of
Virginia, calling into question the
order of the commission liking a uni
form rate of cents mile for carry
ing passengers in the state. The de-
cision reverses the judgment Of the
| United States circuit court for the
eastern district Of Virginia. but only
on the narrow ground that the rail-
roads have appealed from the commits
sions order to the supreme court of
Virginia before seeking the interven-
ton of the federal courts
Must First Exhaust State Courts.
In effect the court directs that the
railroad companies take their case to
the state court of last resort, and that
in order to prevent injustice through
the application of the statute of limit
atoms. the case be retained on the
docket of the United States circuit
court by which it was originally de-
cided favorably TO the roads.
cisiOn that the railroad should resort
to the Virginia supreme court of APP
peals. and after its deCision is rem
dered. appeal 10 the feUfr-.l supreme
court. but that if the verdict of the
Virginia court is not satisfa ctory. the
roads may resume the proceedings in
the United States circuit court. On
this point the court said:
IF the rate should be affirmed by the
l.
roads still regard it as confiscatory.
they will be at liberty to renew their
application to the circuit court with
out fear of being met by a plea of res
adjudicata. 1t will not be necessary
to wait for a prosecution by the COM
mission
Jumped Into Federal Court.
In the case the Virginia commission !
had fixed a rate OF cents per mile !
and was proceeding to publish it and |
Thereupon the railroads went into the |
circuit court of the United States and |
obtained an injunction against the /
commission enforcing the rate, on the /
ground that it was confiscatOry. To /
the bill i'm this case the members of /
the Virginia commission demurred, not /
raising the question of the merits of /
the 2-cent rate, but claiming that the |
commission had exercised the author
ity and jurisdiction of court and that
its order was therefore res adjudicata,
and could not be inquired into or in
terfered with by the circuit court of
the United States.
The supreme court, Justice Holmes |
delivering the opinion. overruled this I
contention. holding that the commits
sion is not a court when making a rate,
but is acting legislatively, and that its
action is not res adjudicata and is not
beyond the reach of the federal courts
if ii violates any provision of the con-
of the United States. Under
the Virginia system, however. an APP
peal is given as of right from the ac-
ton of the commission making the
rate, to the supreme court of appeals
Of that state.
Given Right of Appeal.
The supreme court of the United
States further held that the action of
the court of appeals of Virginia on
such appeal from the commission in
making the rate, is itself legislative
and not judicial, and that il likewise
S subject TO be inquired into. and. if
Il violates any constitutional right of
the carrier. is subject to be enjoined in
the circuit court of the United States.
The supreme court further held, how
ever, that as the state of Virginia had
given this right of appeal from the
the final legislative word
IF the state in respect to the rate is {
not said until the state court of ap- :
)eals says il, and that under these cir /
il is proper for the carrier, :
before going into the federal court. to /
zee if the state court of appeals viii
lot correct the wrong of the commits I
lion which is complained of. and. if it I
'efuses. il viii then he time for the /
'arrier to, come into the circuit court {
If the United States. r
Bill Retained in Circuit Court. 7
The United States supreme court ,
therefore,. while reversing the decision ;
II the court below. ordered that the
ill be retained in the circuit court TO 9
zee what the court of appeals of vir-
,inia viii do when an appeal is taken q
o it, and if it is now too late TO take !
N appeal, the order of the United .
'tates circuit court enjoining the Vir-
'inia commission must be affirmed
II the court of appeals of Virginia, ,
However, entertains the appeal, then :
he railroads would have the right TO
'roceed in the circuit court of the T
United States TO question the validity !
f any order of the Virginia court of =
ppeaiS as contrary 10 tne conStltd- :
ion of the United States. n
The railroads claim that they are
Practically given every substantial Z
light which they contend for. h
The courts action in reversing the T
ircuit court was based on the fact :
hat the roads had failed to appeal to 4
he state supreme court before inVol,- {
lg the Intervention of the United =
tates circuit court .
MARKET PLACE SUGGESTED. o