Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-04-17
Coal Rate Law Sustained
Supreme Court Decision Yesterday

Supreme Court
The supreme court has decided the
maximum coal rate case, holding
the state coal rate law constitution
al, and granting the injunction ask
ed for by the state. Attorney Gen
eral McCue brought the case against
the roads and it was argued by him
shortly before he retired from Of
fee. The decision was handed down
Friday afternoon, and sustains both
the reasonableness of the rates and
the constitutionality of the law. The
|syllabus is as follows:
/. Chapter 81, laws of 1907,
Amending and re-enacting section
4395, revised codes of 1905, pre-
scribing maximum coal rates for tae
transportation by common carriers OF
coal in carload lots within the state
is not violation of article l, section
8 of the constitution of the United
States, known as the commerce
clause, which confers upon congress
the power "to regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian
tribes" nor does it violate the four
teenth amendment of the federal
constitution nor section Is of the
constitution of Nortn Dakota provid-
ing, in effect that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law
2. The legislative assembly pos
|sesses the undoubted power, under
section 142 of the constitution of
l!Sorth Dakota, to prescribe maximum
rates for the transportation by COM
mon carriers of commodities between
points within the state, provided the
rates thus prescribed are reasona-
BILE.
3. The act in question is presump-
lively valid and the burden Is upon
the carrier to prove that the rates
therein prescribed are clearly un-
reasonable.
4, Where the constitutionality Of
la law is made to depend upon the ex-
Iistence or non-existence Of some fact
lor state of facts the determination
thereof is primarily for the legisla-
Iture, and the courts will acquiesce
lin its decision unless it clearly ap-
lpears that such decision was erron-
locus.
8. Evidence examined, and held
mot sufficient to overcome the prima
Ifacie presumption that the rates pre-
scribed by said act are reasonable.
6. The proper test as to whether
1.-THE rates thus fixed are reasonable
or unreasonable is not whether the
rate fixed on the particular commo-
dity is sufficiently high to enable the
Icarrier to earn a fair compensation
after allowing for the legitimate
Icost to the carrier of transporting
1.-The same, but whether, under such
rates., it will be enabled from the
total freight receipts on all It's inter-
state traffic to earn sum above OPP
Ierating expenses reasonably neces-
|sary for such traffic, sufficient to
lyield q fair and reasonable profit up
on its investment. It is within the
power of, the legislature to reduce
1.-The freight on particular article,
iprovide dthe carriers are enabled to
earn a fair profit upon their entire
interstate business.
Application for original writ OF In
Junction.
Writ granted.
T. F. McCue, attorney general, and
IL. P. Kelly, for plaintiff.
Ball, Watson, Young & Lawrence
land c. w. Bum, for defendant.
Opinion by Fisk, J. All concur.
The opinion Of the case, as written
!by Judge Fisk, is concurred in by the
lentire court, and covers the subject
|exhaustively. The opinion holds that
There is no doubt of the legislative
fright to fix maximum carrying char
ges. and upon the proposition of the
lreasonableness Of the rate the court
)say:
It is asserted by counsel for de-
Ifendant that the rates fixed by chap
tier 81 would not even yield sufficient
returns to defray the operating ex-
ipenses alone, much less to pay rea-
lsonable rate upon such investment.
This assertion is predicated, howev-
Ter, upon two assumptions, neither OF
lwhicl are, in our opinion, warrant
led. Starting with the erroneous as
sumption that the act merely fixes
(rates for the transportation Of hg-
Unite coal, counsel throughout the
trial and in their argument further
assumed that the test as to the rea-
lsonableness of these rates is wheth-
Ter the freight. receipts derived from
hauling Ignite coal between points
lin this state, are sufficient to pay,
lin addition to the operating expenses
LOT this particular traffic, reason,
liable compensation or profit. An ex-
iamination>o fthe act in question will
iserve to demonstrate the fallacy OF
the first assumption. Regarding the
tother assumption more extended
consideration is demanded.
For the purpose of showing the un-
lreasonableness of the rates fixed Will
defendant be permitted to- single out
the one commodity to which the rates
apply and prove, as 1t has attempted
Ito do in this case, that the trans
lportation thereof is losing propo-
Isition to the carrier? Or must 1t not
show that II such rates are enforced
lit will be unable from the total
freight receipts to earn a sum above
i ors1303anf tn