Court Opinion

ID: 9711780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:38:57.299948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.461743
License: Public Domain

*18Yeager, J.
(In response to dissent)
As the writer of the majority opinion in this case I claim the right to respond to the dissenting opinion. I respond to it for the reason that, as I believe, it contains fallacies which if not pointed out would lead readers to a mistaken understanding of the true purport of the majority opinion in its exposition of the law as it is, which law neither the State Railway Commission nor this court may with propriety disregard or nullify.
I have no quarrel with the philosophical phases, as such, of the dissent, but I am stating only a truism recognizable and recognized by all profound students of American law and American government when I say that where in the legal examination of a controversy law and philosophy conflict, the law and not philosophy should prevail. This is a country whose government is of laws.
The provision of law which is basic in the creation and functioning of the State Railway Commission is Article IV, section 20, of the Constitution. It is, to the extent of importance in this case, as follows:
“* * * The powers and duties of such commission shall include the regulation of rates, service and general •control of common carriers as the Legislature may provide by law. But, in the absence of specific legislation, the commission shall exercise the powers and perform the duties enumerated in this provision.”
The dissent contains the following statement: “These powers are exclusive and self-executing except as the Legislature may implement them by statute.” I find no real fault with this statement. I think however that the following carries more comprehensively the meaning of the provision: These powers are designed to be and remain self-executing unless and until the Legislature by action destroys them.
The Legislature did pursuant to the power granted to it by the provision itself destroy to the extent applicable *19to the case at bar this self-executing power. It enacted section 75-230, R. R. S. 1943, as follows:
“Subject to section 75-237, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant is fit, willing and able properly to perform the service proposed, and to conform to the provisions of sections 75-222 to 75-250 and the requirements, rules and regulations of the State Railway Commission thereunder, and that the proposed service, to the extent to be authorized by the ‘Certificate, is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied.”
A portion but not all of this provision has been quoted in the dissent. The last clause of it is not quoted. I think that this clause must be accorded much significance in the determination in this case. It is in specific terms a mandate to the State Railway Commission to deny an application for a certificate unless the facts disclose that the proposed service is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.
In any case where there is a factual dispute as to whether or not the issuance of a certificate will respond to the present or future public convenience and necessity the finding of the State Railway Commission and the issuance of a certificate should not be disturbed by this court unless it is abundantly clear that it is unreasonable and arbitrary or contrary to law.
There is no such factual dispute in this case. The record conclusively demonstrates that the certificate here does not respond to any requirement of present or future public convenience and necessity. It responds only to the private convenience of the appellee herein. The record makes it clear that the appellee had certain customers at the locations in question which he desired to continue to serve and also that the customers desired a continuance of his service, but the evidence discloses *20affirmatively that in this connection no public convenience and necessity is involved.
This being true it appears to me that the unavoidable conclusion is that the issuance of the certificate by the State Railway Commission was violative of the mandate of the statute. It therefore becomes necessary, regardless of what may be said or thought of the harshness of the ruling, for this court to reverse the action of the State Railway Commission.
It is a prerogative of this court when such a question is presented to inquire into the power of the Legislature to act but it may not properly inquire into its wisdom.
The power of the Legislature in this instance is not brought into question. If therefore this legislation is harsh and unwise, correction and alleviation can properly come only from the Legislature.