Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/556

 John IV. Cary.

509

nesota Supreme Court held that the orders Company in the Supreme Court of Minne sota, but was won by it on a writ of error in of the commission made in pursuance of the the United States Supreme Court. The subdivision above quoted were not subject to case was decided March 24, 1890, and is review by it. The language used by it is certainly remarkable for a State court of last found in 134 U. S. 418. The " Act to regulate common carriers, resort. It says : "It seems to us that, if language means and creating the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota, and anything, it is perfectly evident that the ex denning the duties of such commission in pressed intention of the legislature is that relation to common carriers," enacted by the the rates recommended and published by the State Legislature and approved March 7, commission (assuming that they have pro 1887, was copied mainly from the act of ceeded in the manner pointed out by the act) should be not simply advisory, nor merely Congress establishing the Interstate Com merce Commission, but contained in addition prima facie equal and reasonable, but final to the provisions of that act, this provision : and conclusive as to what are lawful or equal "That in case the commission shall at any and reasonable charges; that, in proceedings time find that any part of the tariffs of rates, to compel compliance with the rates thus fares, charges or classifications so filed and published, the law neither contemplates nor published as hereinbefore provided, are in allows any issue to be made or inquiry had as any respect unequal or unreasonable, it shall to their equality and reasonableness in fact. have the power and is hereby authorized and Under the provisions of the act, the rates directed to compel any common carrier to thus published are the only ones that are change the same and adopt such rate, fare, lawful, and therefore, in contemplation of charge or classification as said commission law, the only ones that are equal and reason shall declare to be equal and reasonable "; able; and hence, in proceedings like the and making it " unlawful for such common present, there is, as said before, no fact to carrier to charge or maintain a higher or traverse, except the violation of the law in lower rate, fare, charge or classification than refusing compliance with the recommenda that so fixed and published by said commis tions of the commission. Indeed, the lan sion," and subjecting common carriers to guage of the act is so plain on that point legal processes and penalties for failure to that argument can add nothing to its force. comply with the recommendation of the . . Subdivisions (e) and (f), . . and so much commission. It was under the provision of subdivision (g) of the same section as quoted that the most interesting question in relates to compelling compliance with the the above case against the Railroad and schedules recommended by the commission, Warehouse Commission arose. are entirely new, not being found in the act Although the orders of the commission of Congress. The incorporation of this new could only be enforced on application to the matter must have been for a purpose, and Court, and, upon the hearing, the Court had that purpose clearly was to clothe the com jurisdiction to examine the whole matter in mission with full power to determine, in each controversy, including matters of fact as well particular case, what were equal and reason as questions of law, and to alter, affirm or able rates, and to make their determination rescind such order in whole or in part, as on that question final and conclusive." justice might require, nevertheless the Min This admission by the Court that the de