The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1923-08-21
HIGH COURTS
DECISION LAYS
DOWN POWERS
Entire Field of Railroad
Commissions Regulation
of Utilities Reviewed
ANSWERS OBJEC TONS

The decision of the supreme court
in the case of the Hughes Electric
Company of Bismarck, in which the
court denied the contention of the
utility that the laws are invalid and
held that it was constitutional, is
the first comprehensive review of
and duties made by tribunal in the
state. 1t settles the powers of the
railroad commission over public uti-
lities and states that the constitu-
ton provides the powers of such
commission shall be as prescribed by
statute.
The constitutional objections rails
ed by the attorneys for the utility
company we're:
l. That there was denial of due
process and of equal protection of
the laws because the act did not pro-
vide for a full and complete hearing
before judgment with an opportunity
to present all competent and rele-
want evidence, nor for an adequate
judicial review.
2. That there is unwarranted del
egation of judicial power to the
board of railroad commissioners.
3. That the act contains an un-
warranted delegation of legislative
powers.
4. That the penalties provided by
the act for disobedience of the ord
ers of the commissioners are so
severe as to intimidate public utility
companies from assailing such ord
ers in the courts, and that conse-
quently the right of judicial review
is in effect denied.
Have Court Review
"Relators contend that under Sec
ton "a of the act the board of rail-
road commissioners may adopt such
rules and regulations as will in ef-
feet deny hearing" says the opin-
ION written by Justice Christianson.
1T is said that the commissioners
may reject relevant and competent
evidence; and that inasmuch as the
court on appeal is restricted to a
consideration of the evidence taken
before and certified by the Commits
sioners a party may in effect be de-
med hearing according to the law
of the land.
I'm our opinion the contention is
untenable. It will be noted that the
legislature has provided that the
commissioners can act only after no.
tlce and hearing. If the
commissioners act without notice in
the cases where the law REQUIRES it.
their act will be void and Of no eff
rect. In City Commission v. Bis
marck Water Supply Company, supra,
this court ruled that an increase in
water rates ordered by the commits
sioners without notice and hearing
was void.
The courts opinion said il was MT
contended that the commissioners
had adopted any arbitrary or unrea-
sonable rules and regulations. The
legislature in imposing duties and
con1erring powers upon the commits
sloners provided that the commits
sloners must conduct their public
hearings after notice and that all
parties shall be entitled to be heard
and Introduce evidence.
Nor do we think there is anv
merit in the convention that under
section az the Commissioners are an.
thorized to base their orders unon
matters not in evidence, and that
hence effective judicial review of the
1acts may be precluded. The first
thfee sentences in section AZ read:
The public utilities affected shall he
entitled to be heard and to Introduce
evidence at such hearing or hearings
Inc commissioners are empowered to
resort to any other source of infor-
nation available. The evidence i'm
troduced at such hearing shall be re-.
duced to writing and certified under
the seal of the commissioners Re-
iators' objection is leveled at the
second sentence. But when this sem
tence is read in connection with the
'atter Two sentences, and the proyi-
SONS relating to the review of the
evidence on appeal, it is apparent
that what the legislature intended
was to vest the commissioners with
power and to confer upon them the
duty to see that the full truth was
elected at such hearing"
Courts Not Limited
Inc high court did not agree with
the contention Of the plaintiffs that
the courts were limited in review IN
such evidence as the railroad rom.
mission produced in it's record. The
opinion declared the district court
Is given power to entertain appeals
from the decisions of the railroad
commissioners and that the court 80.
entitled to use whatever instrumen.
talitles are recognized in law as tho
proper ones to make its power effec-
tive"
The court held also that there wa. |
not An unwarranted delegation of leg
lsiative powers, this being answered.
by pointing out the provision of the |
statute stating that 1.-THE powers and |
duties of the - =, Commits.
sioners of railroads 80 shall ,
be as prescribed by law"
The contention was that the act did |
not lay down in certain particulars.
rules and methods for the board to fol-
low. This contention, the court held,
was answered by decisions Of other
courts and the U. s. supreme court.
The court also held there was no
merit to contentious Of the plain
tiff with regard to the railroad COM
missions definition Of the terms
"unearned increment" or "unearned
values" because it was not contend