The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-05-07

7, 1918
feet February II. 1907. At that time
section $3.50 OF the code of 1907 vested
the railroad commission with authority
to enforce freight and passenger statu-
tory rates. on February %. 1907, the
of Alabama enacted a law
from the railroad commits
sion all power. authority and duty to
enforce any rates. fares or charges for
the transportation of property or pas
sengers, which have or many hereafter
be prescribed by statute or made the
maximum rates by statute eActs, ex-
trd'session. 1907, page 2s) BY the terms
of section 4 of an act to amend sec
tions'6 %. 90, Al and So of an act to
create the railroad commission of the
state of Alabama, approved February 70,
1907, authority was conferred on the
commission to enforce Its own orders
except those relating to rates. by suits
instituted by 1t in manner therein
provided This act was also approved
November %, 1907. On August 20, 190e,
an act of the legislature was approved
by the terms of which section OF the
amendatory act was amended so as to
again amend section ~ OF the act ere
ating the railroad commission. The ef-
feet of the amendment was to authorize
the commission. in the event car
rler affected by a statutory fixed or
maximum rate failed to put in effect
such rate after 20 days from its be
coming effective, to apply in its own
name to any court of competent juris-
dieuon. etc, for writ of mandamus
or Injunction or to institute in any such
court any approprite proceeding to com
pei the carrier to put in force such
rate and observe and obey the same,
and providing for q right of appeal in
either party.
Under the existing legislation in
June, l9l2 when the citation In the pro
ceedings which resulted In the order
complained of was issued and served
on the complaint, and during the prog
ress OF the hearings and at the time OF
the making of the order in February,
1913, the only authority of the commits
sion with relation to statutory rates
was to apply to a court of competent
jurisdiction, in the event the carrier
after 20 days refused to put the rate
INTO effect for mandamus. Injunction
or other appropriate remedy. There was
no requirement for a hearing or order
|of the commission to put In force q
statutory rate. There was no auth ority
vested in the commission by any of the
various acts of the Legislature, per-
tanning TO its authority, to entertain
jurisdiction of hearings with relation
to statutory rates or to make orders
putting such rates into effect. The stat
utory rate acts both passenger and
freight when taken in connection with
the penalty act, approved December 8.
1907, (Aets extra session, 1907 pages
87-sS(, were self executing, without ac-
tion of the commission, at least other
than the initiation by it of legal pro-
ceedings for their enforcement.
Independent Power
During the same period the railroa d
commission was vested with an independ-
ent power to make rates, both passenger
and feright. 1t had authority by virtue of
sections 5652 and 567S of the Alabama
code of 1907 to prescribe reasonable rates
for passengers and freight, and to act
on its own initiative in so doing; by sec
tions 5657 to classify both articles and
carriers, and while section 5e5S of the code
denied ii the authority to increase a
statutory rate subsequent act, ap-
proved August 8, 1907 (Acts, regular ses-
sion, 1907 page 71D, gave It the power
to increase or reduce statutory rates.
when changed conditions justified Each
of the eight groups are provided that the
railroad commission might change tho
rates by 1t established from time to time
when conditions justified such action
(Acts, extra session, 1907, pages 91-152).
The power so conferred was upheld as
constitutional by the circuit court of ap-
peals CRailroad Commission VS. Central
of Georgia r. r. Co., 10 Fed. 225-23O.
1.-The commission, therefore, at the time
1t entertained jurisdiction of this proceed
ing and made the order complained OF
had amDla authnritIv to Of In, ho
Of establishing rates and fares by maxi
ing orders after having granted hearings,
as an independent rate making body but
had no authority to grant hearings with
relation to statutory rates or to make
any order affecting such rates. If, In
the granting of the hearings and the
making of the order complained of, it
acted In its capacity as an independent
rate-making body, it acted within its
jurisdiction and statutory authority, r..
on the other hand it's action in granting
the hearing and making the order was
In an endeavor to enforce the statutory
maximum passenger rate act and 1t was
not acting as an Independent rate MAX
ing body, it then acted without its statu
tory authority and beyond It's Jurisdiction
since it had only such as the statute
conferred. It's action should De attribut-
ed to the exercise of its lawful authority
1 /
done consistently. The fact that a hear
ing was unnecessary to the enforcement
of the statutory rate, as the statute it.
self conclusively determined the reason
ableness of the rate and was controlling
on the commission and the fact that no
order on the part of the commission was
made the part OF the commission was
made essential by the terms of the pas
senger rate statute to it's enforcement.
tl,,o,, H.. u
mission In entertaining Jurisdiction and
making the order complained of assumed
to act. not in the enforcement of the
passenger rate act but by virtue of the
general power conferred on II by the leg
islature to make passenger rates. When
the proceedings before the commission
We're instituted, the statutory passenger
rate had become ineffective as against
complainant because of the final decree
of the district court of April 2, 1912, and
this left the general power of the com
mission, as to complainant, uncontrolled
by any statutory rate and furnished, for
that reason also, an appropriate occasio
for it's exercise
Evidence Before Commission
ut is contended by complainant that
the character of the proceeding before
the commission, the limited scope of the
a"""eou upoii the nearing, ana
the language of the opinion and of the
order made by it, show that its action
was In an attempt to enforce the statute,
rather than in the exercise of it's indie
pendent rate-making power The most
obvious answer is that no hearing and
no order of any kind could be appropri-
ate if the commission was acting in the
enforcement of the passenger rate act.
1t is said the evidence adduced upon the
hearing before the commission was
identical with that which was presented
to the district court and upon which the
final decree in that cause was rendered !;