Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota

TERM, 1889. Statement of the Case. MILWAUKEE AND CHICAGO, ST. PAUL RAILWAY

COMPANY v. MINNESOTA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE MINNESOTA. 762. January 1890. Argued

No. 13, 14, Decided March 24, Minnesota, legislature approved 7, The act of the 1887, March General 1887, 10', c. establishing a railroad and warehouse Laws interpreted being Supreme Court providing of that State as property, rates of' recommended published by the commission shall be final and conclusive as to what equal charges, judicial are and reasonable and that there can be no in- rates, quiry company, as to the of such and a railroad reasonableness mandamus, application rates, contending to an for a answer it, unreasonable, regard being are and not allowed the state court question put testimony rates; on the reasonableness of such Held, that the act inis conflict with the Constitution the United States, company depriving process of its without due . law, depriving protection it of the of the laws. irrepealable The had made no contract with- the that it right prescribe toll, have the all future time should its rates of legislature from free all control of the State. a writ error to of. review was. 'judgment This Court of the State of Minnesota, a writ of Supreme awarding ;& mandamus Milwaukee St. Paul Rail- against Chicago, way Company. n the, case arose on taken Railroad and proceedings Commission of Warehouse the State of under Minnesota, an act of the of that March State, 7, 1887', approved “ 1887, c. General Laws entitled An act to regulate common carriers, Railroad and Warehouse creating Commission of the State of Minnesota, defining duties of such commission relation to common carriers.” The act full is set forth in in the margin.1 1Chapter Regulate Creating Carriers, 10.— An Act Common op op . the Railroad Commission the State Minne- Warehouse op .Defining sota, . such Commission in Relation Duties to Common Carriers. 6y Legislature Be it enacted the State Minnesota: provisions apply (a) I. That the of this act shall to- common Section RAILWAY v. MINNESOTA. &c. CO.

' the Case. Statement.of of that act creates commission ninth section Tbe “ and Warehouse Commission tbe as tbe Railroad known transportation passengers property engaged of or in the or carriers carrier water, by railroad, partly by partly by railroad' wholly or and when both control, management arrangement, for a or car- under a common are used another, shipment place being one or station to both from within riage or of Minnesota: the State Provided, apply railways nothing act shall to street or to in this That free, by any property, of carriage, storage handling carrier or common or States, Minnesota, or the State for the United for of or reduced rates at corporation State, municipal any any government or or for within for fairs, (cid:127) expositions purpose, to for or or from and exhibition charitable thereat, mileage, breeding purposes,) for or to issuance of (or stock all, equal passenger-tickets,'at rates made to or’ or commutation excursion shippers cars,'and nothing provisions transportation stock with in the to to carriers, prevent subject to to act be construed common the' this shall of act, passes transportation issuing from the free provisions of this for of. passengers. v bridges “railroad” as used this act shall include all or The term (6) railroad; any operated-in and also all the used or connection road ferries railroad, operated corporation operating by any or whether owned in use contract, lease; “transportation” agreement and the term shall or under a shipment carriage. or all of include instrumentalities carrier, subject any charges all made common to (a) That Seo. act, any for service rendered or to be provisions of this rendered n as; aforesaid, property passengers or in of or connection therewith, storage receiving, delivering, handling or of such or unequal equal reasonable; every and and property shall be unreasonable prohibited and be declared to charge for service unlawful. Provided, freight any car-load of of kind or That one class shall be trans- mile,' per ton, per per any greater as ported at as a rate ton low number points and class and to the same kind from the same of car-loads of of origination or destination. carrier, any subject provis- unlawful for common (6) It be td shall unequal act, any preference, give make or or to unreasonable ions.of or firm, corporation particular person, company, advantage any or locality, to traffic, description respect whatsoever, particular any any or to or sub: firm, corporation, particular person, company, locality, any jéct any or or description any unequal prejudice-or particular of traific to or unreasonable respect disadvantage any whatsoever. carriers, provisions subject That all to the common of this 3.- (a) Sec. shall,. powers, dot, respective provide, according point to their at the connection, intersection; ample crossing transferring or facilities for cars, accommodating'and transferring passengers, and for all traffic kinds classes, or-tracks, any from their lines to those' of other common car- . TERM, o 1889.. of the Case.

Statement . consist, three, Minnesota,” persons ap- with the advice and consent governor pointed by of the senate. own, with,.cross rier lines or connect or tracks intersect their whose interchange and shall afford all and reasonable facilities lines, respective receiving., traffic "the (cid:127)cars and between their for- '(cid:127) warding delivering passengers and cars and from connecting their several and those of other common carriers lines there- with, not rates and shall discriminate their between such lines, lines; (cid:127)connecting freight coming or on but over this shall not any requiring common carrier-to use for another construed common tracks, equipments carrier its or terminal facilities without reasonable com- pensation.-. (S) any pro- That it shall be unlawful common earner act, combination, agreement, visions of this enter into contract (cid:127)expressed (cid:127) implied, prevent, schedule, by change or time .or car- cars, devices, riage in different other carriage means or freight place being shipment place from continuous from bulk, (cid:127)destination; stoppage interruption and no break of or made such

(cid:127) prevent .carriage freight being of common carrier shall from treated as place shipment place carriage one from of to continuous of destina- n tión¡ break, interruption stoppage good such or unléss made in was- faith any necessary purpose to for some without intent avoid or unnecessa- any rily interrupt carriage provisions toor evade such-continuous this act. railway shall, (C) Every operating carrier a in this common with- furnish, delay, transportation start and run for unreasonable cars out which, persons property, theretofore, within a reasonable time is transportation any at of its stations on its line of road and at offered.for railroads, jünctions»oí stopping places may and at other such as receiving discharging passengers-and freights; for established such, take, receive, transport discharge passengers property shall and- n at, stations, junctions places, from to such on and from all trains a,t stop same, passengers- freiglits respectively, to advertised for tolls, payment payment, freight the due or'tender of or fare there- for, payment Every per- if such' is demanded. such- common Carrier shall mit to be made and maintained in a' manner connections reasonable its with tracks, warehouse, any manufactory to and side elevator -or from without provided, capacity; reference to its size or that this shall not be construed require any any common carrier to construct so furnish side track as to or provided further, land; from -.off its own that where stations are ten (10) apart carrier, required or miles more the common when so do commissioners, .railroad ahd warehouse shall construct and maintain a side shippers track for úse the- between such stations. (d) any property any subject' Whenever received is common carrier &o'.< RAILWAY CO. v. MINNESOTA. .421 Statement of'the Case.' section of the act The first declares its shall provisions “ common carrier any apply engaged transportation act, provisions transported' of this place he from one' to another .State, it this shall be unlawful for within such common carrier to limit in except way, any schedule, as stated its provided classification hereinafter for, common-law'liability with reference to such while in its custody (as as a common carrier mentioned), liability' hereinbefore responsibility the absolute must include carrier for common the acts agents property. in relation to of its any subject 'That it shall be Sec: unlawful for common carrier to the act, provisions contract, any of this agreement, to enter into or combina- any pool- tion other common or carrier carriers for the division or railroads, ing competing -business of different or to divide between proceeds aggregate railroads, earnings them the or net of such of. or thereof; any portion agreement and in .pooling case of an of their- day each separate business aforesaid of its' continuance shall be deemed-a offence. carrier, any subject provisions act, if common 5. That to the Sec. of this shall, indirectly, any special rebate, directly fate, or or other drawback demand,, person charge, any persons collect or device receive from or a compensation any rendered, greater rendered, or less for service or to be transportation passengers-or .property subject provisions to the act, demands,-collects charges, any per- this than it br receives from other them, persons doing contemporaneous him son or for for a like and ser- such, carrier, the-transportation passengers property, vice in common discrimination,, unjust guilty hereby prohibited, shall be deemed - and declared to be unlawful.-- carrier, any subject Sec. 6. That shall for common unlawful act, provisions charge compensation greater of this' or receive passengers quantity of of like kind dr class and shorter, line, property,'for longer a than a distance the same over being longer(cid:127) distance; included shorter within -the but this shall not be carrier,, authorizing' provisions'of as construed common to-the act, charge great compensation receive shorter as for longer distance. Provided,-however, application appointed That to the commission uiion provisions act, cases, special under the of this may, such cdmnion carrier commissioners, investigation by less, charge be to after authorized distances, transportation longer passengers than for shorter for the of or property; prescribe hiay and the commission from-time to time extent designated may opera- to such common carrier which relieved from-the be. tion of this section of-this aiet. (a) common-carrier, subject 7. That it shall be unlawful to Sec. any ,receive, act, provisions charge any compensation, greater or ton, per per mile, contemporaneous transportation for the of the same class TERM, 1889.

Statement Case. or or railroad, passengers wholly by property .partly by railroad water, when both are used under a partly by line, freight longer for a than for a shorter distance over the same in the direction, point departure, general original same or from the same or to point arrival; authorizing the same hut this shall not he construed as carrier, provisions any subject act, charge tó the common of this to- as mile, per-ton, per ]iigh longer a rate for a as for a shorter distance. any railway company (&) doing Whenever business this State shall station, he'unable, cause, any any railway reasonable to furnish at cars fr.om track, persons or side accordance demand- demands made all ing shipment at grain.or cars such stations or side tracks for the other freight, equally may such cars are as furnished shall be as divided as applicants received, least, shipper among the until each at shall have one car, proportion ratably when balance shall be to the amount divided daily receipts shipper, grain, freight, or ether to each or the amount grain offered at such station on side tracks. (c) charge There shall in no case be more than one terminal for switch car, ing any empty, or transferring whether the same is loaded *or within any city necessary any pass the limits of one or it is car town. If limits, company, city over the tracks more than one or .within town destination, order reach its final or to be returned therefrom its owners,'then company switching transferring owner or first such car therefor, charge shall be entitled to receive the1entire to be made and shall companies subsequent doing switching be liable .to transferring equitable thereof fbr its or their reasonable and share of the compensation received, companies jointly .and if the so interested therein upon receive, agree cannot share thereof each is entitled which same shall be.determined the board of railroad and commis-/ warehouse sioners, upon whose decision thereon shall be final and conclusive alP parties interested, and the said board are authorized to establish rules regulations just in that behalf as to them seem reasonable and [and] not in conflict with this act. every carrier; provisions (a) Sec. That common of this act, shall, effect, sixty -print days (60) within after this shall take $ct classification, keep public inspection, showing thereafter schedules rates, passengers fares and ¿11 established, of' kinds and such common carrier has and- classes which time, railroad, which are in force at (1st) its as defined the first printed séction'of this act..' This schedule aforesaid such comrüon plainly, places upon -prop carrier-shall state the railroad between wbich erty carried, passengers shall contain classification of will and- railroad, tariff, Upon freight,” each, in force the lines of such a distance [of] distances, separately and a table of in'terstatiou the termi and shall also state charges, anywise change, nal regulations- affect rules or rates, part aggregate fares and of such aforesaid or1-determine &c. RAILWAY CO.' MINNESOTA. Statement the Case.

common or control, for a management arrangement, carriage one or from station to both another, or shipment place being the State of Minnesota.” within printed charges. plainly type, copies, shall large Such schedules he in public, kept every depot upon any shall be in for the use or station railroad, places they in conveniently such and in such form that such can be

'inspected. change made, change (&) No classification shall be and no shall be rates,, charges, fares and made in the been .which have carrier, established and aforesaid, by any Compliance published as common the re- with section, except quirements public notice, days’ of this after (10) ten which plainly proposed changes shall state the to made in notice be the schedules force, effect, changed go and the time then when schedules will into proposed changes schedules, printing will be shown or shall new plainly kept indicated the schedules in be force at the for time inspection. public any published common (c) And when carrier shall have established and rates, classifications, charges compliance provisions fares and its- with section, unlawfqlfor it be charge, shall such this carrier to de- common mand, any person persons from greater or receive or collect or less com- any pensation passengers for or ser- or therewith, specified published than is in connection in such vice schedule rates, classifications, charges may fares as at the time be force. carrier, act, subject provisions Every common shall file ('d) of this act, provided hereafter for in this (10) the commission section ten with classifications, rates, copies charges of its schedules fares published compliance requirements established have been with section, pro- promptly notify changes said this shall commission of all Every posed made in the same. common carrier shall also file to be [such] copies contracts, agreements arrangements of all commission or said with provis-, any carriers in relation to other common traffic affected contracts, act, agreements' arrangements it to which or ions passengers pass party. freight or lines or routes And in cases where over carrier, operated by one common and the common car- than- several more routes, joint operating lines or establish schedules of rates riers such routes, fares, copies charges lines or of such or.classifications also, manner, joint said commission. shall in like be filed with schedules and-classifications, rates, fares, joint charges for such Such schedules of lines, aforesaid, public by common car- also made so filed'as Shall hereinbefore-provided publication of in the same manner as riers upon its lines. tariffs own any part any find that commission shall at time (e) That casé the published rates, fares, charges so filed and or' classifications the tariffs of unreasonable, respect unequal provided, are in hereinbefore compel any power hereby directed to shall authorized and and is have TERM,'1889.;

Statement of the Case. “ all. The second section declares made by any common this- carrier, act, provisions same, adopt rate, fare, change charge common to and carrier snch or equal as said cffeclare classification commission shall to be and reasonable. shall, carrier, writing, To end the such which commission inform commoh rates, fares, respect charges such of what tariffs or are un- . classifications equal unreasonable, shall' and tariffs shall and what be recommend substi- tuted therefor. neglect such (/) (10) In-case carrier shall ten common or refuse for days rates, fares, charges after notice tariff such to such of or substitute classifications, adopt commission, or to the same as recommended duty immediately publish it shall be the of said commission such tariff rates, fares, charges they of or classifications' as had declared to be reasonable, posted regular and and cause same to be at all the stations State, on the line of such common carrier in this. shall thereafter it be charge such higher unlawful for common carrier to or maintain a -or lower rate, fare, charge, published by or than that so classification fixed said ' commission. . carrier,, (g) any provisions act, subject If common to the of shall this publish classifications,-rates, neglect or refuse or file its schedule of provided any part section, any. or or ,fares thereof as in this ifor neglect carry common carrier shall- or refuse out such recommendation co'mmission, published by made and such such common shall carrier be mandamus, subject by any judge Supreme- of to a to be issued of writ .the (cid:127) Court, any upon application or the district this courts State commission, compel compliance requirement's with of this section comply with recommendation of the commission and failure requirements punishable with the of said writ of mandamus be 'shall as and contempt, commission', complainants, may and the apply said as also any judge injunction against such for a writ such common from, carrier receiving transporting passengers or or within this State until complied requirements carrier shall have with the of this common commission; and the recommendation any of said section wilful requirements comply violation or failure to or such with recommenda- costs, tion of may said court including thé award such counsel fees, by way penalty, the .return of said writs after due deliber- on just. théreon, may ation 'as be established, hereby That Sec. a commission is (a) created and to' be as the known “Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the Minnesota,” composed commissioners, shall (3) be three shall who appointed by governor, by ahd advice consent of the with senate. (&) appointed The commissioners first under act shall continue respectively, office years for the term of (1) (2) (3) one and three two appointed qualified, until beginning their successors are- the' &c. BAILWAY CO. v. MINNESOTA. Statement of the Case.

service rendered or to be rendered in the as aforesaid, or connection there- passengers propertju Monday January, (1st) 1889; first the term of each to des- a.d. Governor, ignated appointed but their successors shall be for a years, (3) appointed qual- term three and until their successors are that, ified, except any person vacancy appointed fill chosen to shall be unexpired only for the term of the 'commissioner whom he shall succeed. Any ,by inefficiency, commissioner be removed the Governor for duty, neglect of or malfeasance in office. Said commissioners shall not any business, vocation, engage employment acting other while as vacancy impair such commissioners. No in the commission shall right remaining powers commissioners all to exercise of the. commission. (cid:127) removal, (c) resignation Vacancies occasioned or other cause shall be governor provided appointments. original filled in case of Not appointed than more two commissioners shall be members of the political party. person employ same No holding of br official act, provisions relation to common carrier of this State,.or any bonds, owning thereof, property of this stocks or or other law. therein, any upon of, or is in manner who interested shall enter the duties or hold such office. majority (d) The decision of a of the commission be considered shall questions of arising the decision the commission on all for its considera- upon entering tion. Before the of duties his office each commissioner Secretary shall make and subscribe and file the with of an in State affidavit affirm, following solemnly (or may the form: “I do be) as the swear case support that I the of will Constitution the United and States the constitu- Minnesota, faithfully my discharge tion of the of and that X State .will as a member and duties of the railroad commission of the warehouse state Minnesota, my ability; according of to the best of I further and declare of, employ any any am in holding that I not the' or official relation to com- state; any any am in mon carrier nor I within manner interested in stock, bonds or other of such common carrier.” qualified appointed (e) Each and shall into commissioner so enter bonds Minnesota, approved by Governor, of the the in sum State of to be the [to] dollars, twenty perform- of (20,000) thousand conditioned for the faithful commission, duty ance of his of such bond shall be as member which secretary filed the of state. jn proceedings (/) The as commission shail conduct such a manner .its dispatch proper of business and to ends of will best conduce to the justice. quorum majority'of A shall commissioners constitute a any business, participate shall in of but no commissioner transaction any pecuniary hearing proceeding or in has interest. Said com- he which may general or mission from time to time make or amend rules may requisite regulation proceedings as and of orders be for the order TERM, 1889. the Case. of

Statement or handling delivering, storage or for receiving, with, un- and reasonable; be every shall such property, thereof, con- it, shall including of notices service which forms before Any in courts this State. nearly may to in use he those as form as person and be or appear commission heard party may before said be entered Every act of commission shall attorney. and official vote upon request public proceedings of either shall be record interested, of the commission. Said commission party at the discretion or Any judicially noticed. member of shall be seal which have an official shall principal may and affirmations. The office oaths administer the commission Paul, city general session of St. where its commission shall of the be held. shall public parties may or of the of the the convenience (ff) Whenever thereby, may' expenses prevented delay 'the commission promoted, or or one, more, may, by any part or special It State. sessions hold necessary any prosecute any.inquiry to its duties commissioners question pertaining State, any part of fact into matter provisions any of this act. carrier common business attorney general of- Minnesota shall be ex (h) The officio give them such attorney and shall counsel and advice prosecute require; and he they may to time shall from time institute any railroad commission deem all said and warehouse' suits which institute; proper render to such railroad expedient and he shall a,dvice counsel, necessary all commission assistance and warehouse state, act, any according provisions law of this carry of this out the duty meaning It shall likewise be thereof. the true intent prosecuted, any county county,attorney suit is instituted request prosecution a final issue of the same to in the to aid authorized, hereby are when the facts commission commission. Said warrant, employ any 'judgment and all any in their given shall case proper, expedient they may think and neces- legal additional counsel any county attorney attorney in the sary general or conduct to assist pro- prosecution they may bring under determine to suit act, of this state. of this or of law visions hereby authority created shall have (a) That the commission Sec. 10. carriers, all enquire mánagemént of the common sub- business into act, keep provisions to the ject and itself informed as of this shall to the conducted, is and shall have the method in the same manner and which information, complete full and right common carriers to obtain from such carry perform necessary- the duties and out the commission to to enable created; objects in order to enable said commissioners it was which act, hereby efficiently perform made their under this is to their duties on the lines duty the various stations cause'one of number to visit to their days’ twenty- practicable, giving (20) after of each railroad as often as newspapers, place thereof in the local and the time and notice of such visit &o. RAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA.’ Statement of the Case. unreasonable such service is charge prohibited declared to be unlawful.” (12) at least in to county once twelve months visit each in the State in station, or is be personally enquire shall located' railroad which into business, management of purpose, such railroad and for this all rail- carriers, companies and common employés, road their officers and are required to aid and furnish each member of railroad and warehouse the. proper facilities, each, commission reasonable and with or all commission, right, of said members shall have the in his or their official pass capacity, any State, to free on railroad all in trains on railroads times, cars, any in and to enter and remain at all suitable and all offices or depots, .upon any company, or the railroads of railroad in this in the State performance whenever, duties; judgment of official in the of the com- mission, appear any respect any par- it shall common carrier or fails State, comply judg- ticular to with the laws of this or in their whenever ment, repairs any necessary upon railroad, any are its or to or addition change necessary, any. of its stations or change station-houses or in the operating conducting mode of its-road or its business is reasonable or ex: promote pedient security, in order to convenience accommodation public, by company, said commission shall inform such railroad writing, thereof in notice to be served as a summons in civil actions is required corpo- to against be served the statutes of this actions rations, secretary, certified the commission’s clerk 'or if such com- neglect comply order, mon carrier shall or refuse to with then the discretion, may, in proceedings commission cause suits or be in- provided stituted to enforce its orders as in this act. (a) carrier, any provisions subject Sec. That in case common to the ac.t, done, do, done, permit, any of this shall cause to be or to be act or prohibited thing unlawful, in this act or declared be or shall omit to do any act, required done, thing matter or this act to be such common car- person persons, parties injured party thereby, rier shall be or liable or damages consequence any for the full amount of sustained such viola- act, provisions together tion of the of this a reasonable counsel or attorney’s every recovery, fee be fixed ihé court in case of at- which torney’s part, fees- shall taxed and collected costs the case. (6) any person persons, party parties That claiming damaged or to be carrier, any provis- the action or non-action common act, may complaint ions of this either make as herein- provided for, fpr may bring after -suit in or their own behalf re- his covery damages may under for which such liable common-carrier provisions act, competent any of this of this district court State of jurisdiction; person persons right pursqe but shall not have both of said remedies at the same time. (c) brought recovery damages -In action court before director, officer, receiver, compel pending the same shall be OCTOBER TERM, 1889.

Statement of the Case. section- every common carrier eighth provides to the of the act shall subject provisions for print keep ’corporation any company, agent suit, or trustee or attend, defendant in to such case, appear testify may compel production in such papers corporation company, party any the hooks and of such or such suit; testimony any the claim that or tend such evidence to criminate person giving shall such evidence not excuse such witness from testi- fying, person against such evidence not be used but such shall on the trial any proceeding. 'criminal carrier, any subject provisions act, 12. That to the common of this Sec. corporation, any or such common carrier is a whenever director or officer thereof, receiver, trustee, lessee, apy person for, agent acting or or or corporation, who, employed by any corporation, áuch alone or other person company, party, wilfrfíly done, or do or cause to be or shall .shall done, wilfully permit, act, any thing suffer or to be or in this act m.atter unlawful, prohibited therein, or declared to be or shall aid or abet who or act, wilfully any act, shall thing omit or fail to do or mattér in this re- done, quired -permit act, any to be or ’shall or suffer or willingly cause mat-. thing required by done, done, ter or so directed-or this act to be not be so any guilty or shall aid therein or shall be such_omission, any and.abet act, therein, (cid:127)wilful of this or shall aid infraction or abet shall’be deemed guilty provisions shall, upon of á violation of the of this act and conviction any the'jurisdiction thereof in district court of the State within of which .committed, subject'to penalty offence was a of not less than two (2500) thousand five hundred dollars or than more five thousand (5000) offence, dollars for the first and not than (5000) less five thousand dollars subsequent more (10,000) or than ten dollars thousand for'each offence. (a) person, firm, cbrporatlon association, any Sec. That or or any mercantile, agricultural manufacturing society, any body politic municipal organization, complaining anything done or omitted to be done -by any provisions act, cdmmon carrier to the of this in contraven- thereof, provisions may apply petition, (cid:127)tiofi of the to said commission briefiy which shall the facts. state the-charges Whereupon statement thus made shall be forwarded (&)(cid:127) carrier, to such common who shall be called the comrtnssion complaint, satisfy writing the same in answer within reasonable on time, specified carrier, tó be the commission.. If such common within make, specified, reparation injury alleged the time shall have been done,, complainant liability only, said shall be relieved of to the carrier particular complained violation of thus of. If' carrier shall law satisfy complainant specified, appear not time or there shall within.the complaint, ground investigating reasonable said it shall be the duty commissiomsummarily complained of, to'investigate the matter proper. complaint in such tnanner and such means as it deem No .shall (cid:127) at damages shall time be because of dismissed of direct absence CHICAGO &c. RAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA.

Statement of the Case.- schedules public it has estab- inspection .of lished ;(cid:127) shall make n (cid:127) or injury mission been visions tempt^ party to obey which such under either done or an order may trict court for testimony ished as courts of this dence shall not excuse such witness testimony tion, duction the wilful cause ceedings hooks, papers, commission sion, after, nal sion shall be entered of which shall include the power complainant. obecf' (b) an officer or Sec. (c) proceeding. jurisdiction every be found to have been a complained of, if it shall be its thereto other who why If in in all by provisions or duty Any investigation, to' subpoena any, of it omitted and if though'the requiring are testimony damages require this act fact found. such shall not be used the same hooks, papers and.documents, shall be or parties any (a) inquiry of- the district "courts of this judicial proceedings, are should be instituted to be evidence State, the commission to And for the any judicial contracts, agent have contumacy based, together.with Whenever an case in upon issued of of this the or of delivered has been sustained such aggrieved be is carried made of is.persisted iti; same had and the record the in requiring the attendance of. duty complained, and-, thereof, the done attendance made in the witnesses by may All findings record, common‘carrier, commission; act, agreements to hearing the or refusal should not be reports- district purposes against law injured; by. to such common appear tend ' or, make a that on, shall, name of such commission as takfen’place or'to commissioners to investigation an any the when such common consequence of fact cognizable be investigation or forth to of the court finds that the end, common of common carrier to any thereof in this such a-copy such other to.thé fr.om deemed criminate' the and such and report to and documents witnesses of this act the commission shall have .by investigations noth in case of may" person recommendation any persons contumacy under the officer or that testifying; in an action evidence, _State. satisfaction'of State, thereofrshall.be. shall be cause carrier, prima shall common carrier in'writing invoke the carrier, together party which the conclusions such said findings connected shall made any and within the on the trial ' be made a facie agent, contumacy punished provisions commission, The Claim person carrier or contumacy .in publie. copy that common carrier witnesses and or ;be the made relating but such parties violation party'or- parties refusal so made pending evidence aid of of its anything as to what or production therewith, violation, inquiry the is a respect thereto’,' furnished to giving by by plaintiffs, person as jurisdiction that of, to that with of complaining, said commis- by or refusal to shall be the commis- report corporation, commission, or refusal is and evidence shall or any any in the dis-' any this-act. said com may such evi- is within has any the a notice to show for con- it to repara- if matter of there- of all crimi- issue shall been have such each pun- who pro pro- pro- any" the the re- of or' TERM, 1889.

' of the Case. Statement after ten notice, therein days’ public plainly no except change and the time to be when made, the changes proposed stating and desist from such violation make common carrier to to said cease done, reparation injury to have been within brief but so found time, commission; specified by if be, and within time td reasonable to,appear specified, be made commission common shall law, reparation has made ceased carrier has from such violation doné, compliance report injury and no- found halvebeen with commission, party complaining, the satisfaction tice of tlie or to entered record statement to effect shall be, thereupon liability from further relieved the said common carrier shall particular penalty fop such violation law. . refuse, neglect time if said carrier shall within the (c) But common reparation law, specified, désist and make from such violation o.f report compliance (cid:127)injury and notice the commission as done aforesaid, duty certify it shall be the commission to forthwith refusal, report a'copy neglect of its and such fact of such forward State, punishment attorney general certificate to redress provided. as hereinafter duty attorney general to (a) That the it shall be whom Sec. certificate, provided may report' and as in the said commission forward act, appear report preceding such shall from next section of when parties by any party by any injury or damages or been sustained that has carrier, by such common to forthwith cause reason of such violation of law brought judicial in court in wherein such suit to-be the district district persons, occurred, person or in- on and in name of violation behalf carrier, damages jured, recovery for against of such such common injured party, injury may and cost and as have been sustained prosecution paid appropriation expenses'of be out of the herein- such shall the, provided purposes for and of this act. after uses power to (6) And the said have and determine matter court shall hear such, complained of as the short notice the common carrier court On to notice served on such common reasonable; deem and shalhbe inch shall servants, carrier., officersagents manner as the his or its or in such court direot.; proceed to shall and said hear and determine matter shall .court applicable speedily,- pleading, to or- without the formal proceedings jn premises, equity; justice dinary in the suits manner as to do but such power to this end such have if it thinks fit direct and court shall to such'.persons appoint, prosecute, may all in such as it such mode just inquiries judg- may the court to a needffil enable it to form think report petition. And, hearing the of- in the matter of on such ment, such prima stated. shall facie of the'matters therein evidence be .-.said'.commissioñ (cid:127) (cid:127) court, appear hearing, (¿) if It be to siich or on And made to on such (cid:127) requirement report any person, persons, of such order or or the lawful it, commission, disobeyed, in'question, or has been violated such drawn &c, RAILWAY CO. v. MINNESOTA. Statement the Case. (cid:127) into it' will shall be effect;

they go it to unlawful or or receive less any greater charge compensation thp,n injunction, proper shall be lawful such court to issue a ofwrit or other otherwise, process, mandatory or to restrain such common carrier from continuing violation or such further such disobedience of such order or requirement enjoining same; said obedience to the any any injunction disobedience of such proper writ of or other case otherwise, mandatory process, or it shall be for such court lawful to issue attachment, any process or applica- other court writs said incident or injunction proper process, mandatory otherwise, or ble to writs of other or carrier; corporation, against against such if a common one or more of directors,' same, owner, lessee, agents against any or officers or trustee, person failing obey injunction or other receiver such writ of or' proper process, mandatory otherwise; may, other said or court if it shall fit, directing make an order such carrier think common or other so person disobeying process, injunction proper mandatory’, such or writ other otherwise, pay money., exceeding or such sum not for each carrier or person (500) every day in default sum of five hundred dollars for order, day person after a to be named that such carrier or other shall other-, obey injunction proper process, mandatory fail to such or other or moneys payable direct, wise; and such court shall be as the shall either to party complaining, or into court abide the ultimate decision of the court;. may, prejudice and payment thereof- without other mode of same, enforped by recovering the or attachment order in the nature of execution,in a like manner as if had writ. the same been recovered of. personam in such final decree court. party, appeal proceeding. Either to such' court before said Supreme provided regulations Court of S>fate, the' under same now but, respect security appeal; -appeal such such shall for. not law^ supersede operate stay order the court or the execution process thereon, Rearing deciding unless' the court writ case direct; matter, may, every should such eourt otherwise order payment V of such costs and counsel fees as shall deemed reasonable. attorney general period In shall (d) (10) case not of ten within commission, days making any by judicial of order the' after the commence thereof, proceedings1 any company, for the railroad or enforcement other by order, any period may common carrier affected such at time the within thirty days upon ordér, (30) after the him or such it of service [of it] appeal proceedings,- and before commencement of the therefrom district fo any judicial through may district or court of into his its route which or appeal run, upon by the service of of such written some notice member commission,. secretary upon appeal, taking or And the of such the such .of thereof, service, proof filing and the of the notice in the with office1 court, pending clerk of in such1 there shall be deemed purposes court a civil action of the character and mentioned in sec- for.the TERM, 1889. of the Case. Statement for transporting property; so established published, with of its schedules it file shall copies Upon appeal, (15) fifteen of this act. (11) and tions eleven any any application for the enforcement of such order made hearing of attorney jurisdic- general, the court shall have commission or controversy, including in matters of fact matter tion to examine whole .affirm, law, modify questions and to or rescind such order in as as well may require; any part, justice being in case of order in as whole or aforesaid, purposes modified, order shall for all the con- such modified as place original order modified. templated by in of the so this act stand supersede appealed stay appeal or the order from aforesaid shall No as or modeá order shall relate rates in so far as such appellant public, unless- transacting the business hearing deciding shall so direct. or such case court facts, any manner in ascertained said (a) That whenever Seo. 16. commission, shall, prosecution,, judgment shall be the its warrant immediately to be duty cause suit instituted and commission said may any pro prosecuted any violate against carrier who common act, prosecutions any All such of this State. shall of this law visions Minnesota, except provided as is otherwise the State of in the name of act, State, may any county any be instituted of this or in law any common carrier through the line of so sued or into which act, .provisions extend, penalties under the of this may recovered and all State, State, in the name of the suit instituted of this law treasury paid immediately the sheriff or other into the state shall be b3r same; person collecting and the same shall be the state officer placed general fund. revenue to the credit of'the treasurer act, provisions, except penal purposes the dis- of this (&) Uor always in to be session. State shall be deemed trict courts of filis hereby require directed to annual (a) the commission is That Sec. act, provisions reports of this all common carriers from made, reports prescribe shall be the manner which said fix the time and questions upon specific require to all carriers and to from such answers reports annual shall need information. Such the commission issued, capital amounts.paid stock there- in detail the amount of show for, same, paid, of-payment the dividends the sur- and the manner stockholders, fund, plus any, floating the funded and if and the number of thereon; paid and value of .the carrier’s debts -and the interest the cost equipment, employés property, franchises and the number of class, expended improvements year, salary paid each each the amounts improvements; expended, earnings and the character of such how business, sources, receipts operating of each branch of and from all profit complete expenses; and lossand exhibit the balance other operations year, including an annual the financial of the carrier each .balan.cé-sheet; grants the total number of acres of land received also CHICAGO &c. v. CO. MINNESOTA. RAILWAY

Statement the Case. shall such commission of all notify changes .oposed t- that in case the made; shall find at timé that commission any either from the United States or Minnesota, from the State of the number sold, grants price acre, average per acres said received [of] grants number appraised per of acres of unsold and the acre. Such value reports detailed shall also contain such information in relation to or rates regulations concerning freights agreements, arrangements fares or express companies, telegraph companies, sleeping dining contracts with lines, companies, carriers, fast-freight car and other’common as the com- may require, copies contracts, mission agreements arrange- with of such ments. discretion, (6) may, purpose And the commission for- the within act, enabling carry purposes prescribe it the better out the (if opinion practicable prescribe uniformity of the commission it is such period keeping and methods of accounts) a of time all com- within carriers, subject provisions act, have, mon to the of this shall as as near be, may system accounts, a uniform and the -manner which such kept. shall accounts shall, (a) 18. That such Sec. commissioners on or (1st) before the first day year, required by of December in each governor and oftener if so, report governor do doings preceding make to the of their year, facts, containing explanations statements and as will disclose system workings bearings the actual of the of railroad in its upon prosperity State, people sug- the business and of this and such gestions may appropriate. in relation thereto to them seem They also, direct, (5) shall at such as the times Governor shall examine- any particular subject management connected with conditions n railroads, report thereon, opinion writing! to him in their with their investigate reasons therefor. Said commissioners shall also and con- what, any, sider if amendment or of the revision railroad laws of this State demand, they special the best interests shall make a bien- report reports nial governor. on said All such made to the governor shall be him transmitted at the earliest practicable time. (c) Nothing any way abridge in this act shall contained or alter the statute, existing provisions now at common law or but remedies Provided, pending this act áre in addition to such litiga- remedies. That no any way tion shall in be affected this act. salary 19. Each Sec. commissioner Shall receive an annual of three dollars, payable (3000) thousand in the same manner as the salaries of appoint secretary, other state officers. The commissioners shall who salary dollars, (1800) payable shall eighteen receive an annual hundred shall, secretary entering like manner. Said before the' duties office, secretary his make and file of state an affidavit the fol- “ lowing solemnly (as be) form: I do or affirm case I swear

VOL. cxxxiv —28 TERM, -OCTOBER

Statement Case. the tariffs of and' part so filed published it shall have respect unreasonable, unequal power, and it is authorized and directed, to common compel any carrier to and same such change as the adopt charge support will the'Constitution of 'the United States and the constitution -of Minnesota, faithfully the State of discharge my and that Í will duties as secretary of the railroad.and warehouse commission of the State of Minne- sota, according.to my ability; the best of and X ftather declare that I am' of, employ any in holding to, not or any official relation common carrier warehouseman, grain I, State; any manner, within said nor am in inter- stock, any ested bonds or other of such common carrier or grain secretary appointed qualified warehouseman.” The said so and shall' ' Minnesota, approved enter into bonds to the State to gov- be dollars, ernor in the sum (10,000) of ten thousand conditioned for the faith- performance duty secretary commission, ful of his as of such which bond secretary be filed shall with the of state. The commission shall have authority employ compensation and fix the eaapioyés for such other as necessary proper performance it find duties-, to the sfibject of its approval of governor of the State. n Thecommissioners shall be furnished awith suitable officeand all neces- sary supplies. office Witnesses summoned before the commission shall be paid mileage paid the same fees and that are witnesses in the district courts of the State. ' expenses commission, All including necessary expenses all employés incurred the commissioners or their under order, making any investigation place their city other than the Paul, paid St. treasury shall be presen- allowed and out of the state on the therefor, approved by tation of itemized-vouchers the chairman of the com- mission and the state auditor. Sec. 20. That the sum hereby ap- of fifteen (15,000) thousand dollars is propriated-for purposes year use and act ending this for the fiscal July thirty-first eighteen (31st), eighty-eight (1888), hundred and and the hereby appropriated sum of (15,000) fifteen thousand dollars is for the use purposes and ye ending July thirty-first act for the fiscal ir (31st), eighteen eighty-nine hundred and (1889). parts Sec. That all hereby and of acts inconsistent acts herewith are repealed; Provided, provisions apply That the gov- this act shall to and existing ern appointed by and railroad warehouse commissioners virtue approved of an act (5th), eighteen March fifth eighty-five hundred and (1885), hereby powers who charged are clothed with the responsibilities act, imposed granted duties of this to and railroad "andwarehouse commissioners of the State of Minnesota. ¿2. Sec. act shall This take effect and be in force from and its after passage. Approved 7th; March 1887.' &c, RAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA. Case.

Statement “ to be declare shall reasonable,” commission equal the commission inform such shall, end writing, tariff, in what carrier respect charges is-unequal shall recommend what tariff shall be .sub- unreasonable, case the carrier shall therefor; stituted neglect notice to after such ten adopt days tariff latter, it be the shall recommends, the commission duty , it such tariff as has declared to immediately publish to be at all the reasonable, cause posted on the line of such carrier Minnesota, stations regular unlawful thereafter for the carrier to it shall charge-a, lower rate than that so fixed and the. published by higher if carrier commission; that, subject provisions - shall act or file schedules óf 'neglect publish out such recommendation made and carry charges, to writ it shall be published “ to be issued bf the mandamus Court by any judge Supreme ” District Courts of on or of of the the State, application any with the commission, of the compel compliance require- 8 and with the of the' of section recommendation ments and a failure to with the commission, comply requirements shall be as and for mandamus punishable, contempt,. also to for the commission an and may apply judge the carrier from against receiving injunction transporting within the State until it shall have or passengers property of section 8 and with with requirements complied and commission, recommendation wilful vio- failure to with such lation or comply or such- requirements the court commission, of the recommendation award such may counsel fees, on return costs, way penalty, including writs and after due deliberation thereon, said just.' The 22d of June, 1887, On the Boards-of-Trade Union Faribault, in' Northfield, Owatonna, Minne- Farmington, the commission filed with sota, petition writing, complain- Milwaukee & St. Paul that the Chicago, Pailwáy Company, ing carrier a common engaged transportation being railroad, from' wholly carriage shipment Faribault, Dimdas, Northfield, and Owatonna, Farmington, TERM,. 1889.

Statement of the Case. (cid:127) ,cities Paul St. all of those Minneapolis, places within State of made Minnesota, being charges services in the of milk from said transportation Owatonna, Dundas, Northfield and Paribault, St. Paul Farmington' which; were Minneapolis, unreasonable; unequal' that it four cents charged per gallon milk from Owatonna to Paul St. and three Minneapolis, and, cents from Faribault; Dundas, Northfield per gallon n Farmington,, to the said and that such cities; were charges, unreasonably traffic in milk between high, subjected said to unreasonable points prejudice disadvantage. of the was such rates be declared un- petition .that prayer and the reasonable, carrier be the same compelled change such rates and as the commission should adopt declare to be reasonable.

A statement of the thus made was complaint forwarded on June, of. 1887, 29th railway company, and was called the commission, on the 6th of upon by July, 1887, to or answer it in satisfy at the' the.complaint writing office of the commissionin St. Paul, on the 13th of July,

On tfye 30th of June, Mr. J. F. Tucker, assistant addressed a letter general'manager railway company, from Milwaukee to the secretary commission, saying: “I have favor of with the'29th, as to your milk complaint rates unreasonable and being unequal. They may unequal if unreasonable.' are low for They the service unreasonably — —train and are 25 performed cent less per passenger than the same into New York, commodity charged distances and hundred longer times in favor of larger volume I New am York. it hard ta .frank com- say appreciate from of trade that one-tenth of plaints boards a cent per gallon on milk handled on train one mile is passenger unreasonable. "With what is the that enables such a con- comparison made clusion? It’s not. rates and train, by freight was first-class made low trade, under and encourage hope promise that, fostered, trade were it would be when advanced. usual, This, has been forgotten.” n ' ajt 1887, 13th the office July, O.n.the the commission of. &c. RAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA.

Statement Case. J. A. its Paul,- -appeared by Chandler, in St. company duly and The Boards-of-Trade its Union authorized attorney, the commission the. and attorney, investigate proceeded n complaint. An rates investigation charged by its services milk from Owatonna, transporting company Northfield and Paul Dundas, to St. Faribault, Farmington, made was and it found and Minneapolis, milk from that the charges transporting to St. Paul and three and Faribault were Owatonna Minneapolis were cans; that ten-gallon cents charges per gallon unreasonable; and tariff and company’s unequal milk from Owatonna and Faribault rates for transporting filed and cities, provided by chapter those published as. and and' was 1887, unreasonable; of the Laws unequal .10 rate cents declared per the commission gallon 2^ rate for reasonable such ser- cans-was an and equal ten-gallon vices. . the commission made a 4th of

On the report August, fact which its which included upon findings writing, as to the tariff recommendation based, were conclusions so found to be substituted which tariff should and also a unreasonable,- rates specification unequal to be it declared reasonable. charges communication, was of a dated at St. This shape paper the commis Paul, 4, 1887, secretary signed by August “ It said: It addressed sion and company. appearing for-the rates and schedule of from transportation your and Minnesota Iowa Division of of milk over upon and. receive for the collect, trans road, you charge, your said line from milk Owatonna and over portation to the cities of thrée cents Faribault Minneapolis St.JPaul from Dundas, cans, Northfield per gallon, ten-gallon Paul and cities of St. two to said Farmington Minneapolis in cans of like and one-half cents' per gallon, capacity, that such rates and been made having-1 complaint charges.are that the and-unreasonable, and services performed by unequal are not worth .the said in such reasonablv you and this there therefor; sums charged commission!having TEEM, 1889. OCTOBEE Statement Case.

. of to the section of upon, provisions an pursuant eight act entitled ‘An common act'to and carriers, regulate creating Railroad and Warehouse Commission the State of Minne duties of sota, and such commission defining relation to .March carriers,’ 7, common examined 18.87, approved and of said cause reasonableness and complaint, finding, pur of said suant to subdivision section, said tariff your (e) far so rates, of milk to appertains cities of St. Paul and from the other Minneapolis above places as said tariff named, insomuch for or provides requires collection than charging greater two compensation oné-half cents unreasonable and per gallon, excessive. Therefore said commission recommends and directs that you, the said Milwaukee & St. Paul Chicago, Railway Company, shall alter and said schedule change your adoption substitution of a rate not exceed two and one-half cents per for the services aforesaid from the cities of gallon Owatonna Faribault, them, or either to said St. Paul and Minne The as at apolis. advised, present approves the custom and it is which, informed, has been arrangement and is now' in use the Minnesota & adopted Northwestern R. R. Co., two and one-half cents on collecting per gallon all milk it, but transported by distance; this ex regardless nois pression opinion part decision, notice, order in this case.”

This was entered report record, and a furnished to copy Union, Boards-of-Trade and a also was copy delivered, on 4th with a August, notice company, to desist from such charging receiving unequal unreasonable rates for such services. The^ commission thus informed the in what such tariff company writing respect of rates and was charges unreasonable, unequal recommended to it in tariff what should be substituted writing therefor, wit, tariff so found reasonable the commission. refused, for more than ten neglected after tariff of

days substitute or notice, adopt as .was recommended the commission. The latter charges ' .OTA, &c. RAILWAY CO. MINNE Case.

Statement .the the tariff of which it had de- published thereupon and caused it to be and to be reasonable, clared equal posted in the Faribault on the 14th of the station of at company on the and at all the stations line of October, 1887, regular November and 12, in Minnesota to. the company prior n the statute. in all things complied tariff so was dated Octo- The and made, published posted, “ headed: and ber and was 13, 1887, Milwaukee Chicago, and Minnesota St. Paul (Iowa división.) Railway Company. Tariff on Milk from O.watonna. Faribault to St. Freight ” Paul and effect October 15, 1887; ahd taking Minneapolis, cents in cans per charge gallon ten-gallon prescribed 2-J- the Owatonna station either or the Faribault station to from St. Paul or to be the either Minneapolis, legal, equal maximum reasonable for such ser- charge compensation and declared that the in same was force and in vice, effect lieu and theretofore place compensation demanded and received therefor by company. 6th

On .the December, 1887, commission, by made an to State, attorney general application Court of the State for a of- mandamus to writ com- Supreme to with the made pel company comply recommendation to it its tariff rates on milk by change from Owatonna and Faribault Paul and St. .to Minneapolis, and to the rates declared the commission to be adopt and reasonable. set forth the application pro- that hereinbefore had refused detailed; ceedings company out the recommendation so made, carry published posted that it continued to three cents commission; charge of milk in cans per gallon transportation ten-gallon from and Faribault to St. Paul and O.watonna Minneapolis; tha* said was unreasonable and excessive; charge unequal, that milk cents for the it of per gallon 2J in cans from Owatonna and Faribault St. Paul ten-gallon was the maximum reasonable Minneapolis charge n service; that 2|- rate therefor in cents excess of gallon per in cans was and excessive; unreasonable ten-gallon unequal, that three- cents a higher cans was rate per gallon ten-gallon TERM,

Statement of Case. than, was on the same distances trains charged passenger other railroad express company by any company milk Minnesota, to St. Paul or engaged transporting cents cans Minneapolis; per was gallon ten-gallon 2£ rate like distances on trains highest charged for passenger the milk by any company; transported by to St. Paul and over company its Iowa and Minneapolis, Minnesota from division, Calmar, Iowa, (extending in Minnesota, and LePoy, from Owatonna LePoy, through Faribault, St. Paul Minneapolis,) large quantities of which milk were from was so Faribault, trans- shipped on a train which ran ported by passenger daily from Owatonna St. Paul and Minneapolis; means of such excessive company, by charges, subjected traffic milk at Faribault and Owatonna to undue and un- and reasonable prejudice disadvantage. an alternative writ of

Thereupon, mandamus was issued the 'returnable it court, before on the 14th of by December,.

theOn 23d of the December, 1887, filed its return company to the alternative it which set writ, up: That it was not for the of

(1) Minne- competent to a sota commission a of rates delegate for power fixing 1887, and that act of the March .transportation, so far as it. to confer the commission attempted to establish power rates for the of and transportation was. freight passengers, void under the constitution of the State; That the the as' owner of its

(2) company, railroad, fran- chises, and and entitled to equipment the appurtenances, and beneficial use was possession thereof, authorized estab- lish, rates for the of and transportation freight passengers, to the that such rates should subject only be fair provision and the reasonable; rates the by establishing the will was a against tanto company pro taking of its and without due property, thereof, depriving process law, violation of 14 section of Article of the Amend- ments to the Constitution the and that States; the spited order the of October was making 13, 1887, tanto pro &c. RAILWAY MINNESOTA. CO.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error. and the without taking, company, depriving property in violation of due said section 1. therefore law, process and of no void effect; That the three cents rate of as a gallon,

(3) per freight milk in cans on trains from ten-gallon carrying passenger and Faribault to St. Owatonna Paul Minne- respectively was fair rate of reasonable, rate; just apolis cents so fixed and established cans, per gallon, ten-gallon 2% was not a com- reasonable, fair by just service rendered and that ; pensation company of such rate the commission, establishing against will tanto a of its company, wasjpro taking without due of said law, violation section 1. process

The came on for case the alternative writ and hearing upon a reference to return, take applied on issue raised testimony allegations appli- for the writ and cation the return as to whether thereto, rate' fixed the commission was fair and reasonable, just. court denied the for a reference, rendered application in favor of the relator and that a writ judgment peremptory of mandamus An issue. for a was application reargument made and denied. The terms writ were peremptory directed to be, company comply require- ments the recommendation and order made the commis- on 4th sion 1887, and its tariff of rates August, change milk from Owatonna and Faribault to St. Paul substitute Minneapolis, tariff therefor the recommended, published posted by milk commission, wit, rate of cents in per gallon from cans Owatonna and to St. and Faribault Paul ten-gallon the rates the commission Minneapolis, being published by declared to be and reasonable therefor. Costs were also this To review adjudged against* company. judgment, writ of error. company brought Mr-. John W. for in error. Gary plaintiff in I. The court erred Min- holding nesota, either statute a railroad by positive acting through TERM, 1889.

442 Error., Argument Plaintiff in fix make, and establish the authorized is rates persons and charges owned, this railway lines over denying under the Constitution of company, right fix establish its make, rates and States, United charges to the only, over subject, rates railway, provision shall, be fair, reasonable: just the exercise such a First. Because would power impair of the contract the charter contained under obligation said road was constructed. The charter in 1856 was a contract between the granted of' and the Minnesota said Territory company organized by charter and the State of ; Minnesota, to the Terri- succeeding on its admission to was. tory statehood, to its pro- visions.

The road constructed was the charter. The pursuance in error has succeeded to the of the ownership plaintiff prop- and all the franchises erty rights, privileges granted by laws charter under the of the State of Minnesota. Any legis- lation of the State franchises and impinging rights, is privileges granted thereby, impairment ap obligation contract so made, which error plaintiff may law- resist. fully

There is no in the charter or in statute provision any general to the or State of Minnesota the reserving Territory right alter, amend or said it in full repeal charter, remains force according terms grant. Dartmouth, 4Case, 518, language College "Wheat. the board of trustees to fill conferring upon vacancies -power in their own number, than more is the no explicit language of this charter; this court held yet that was a contract that could not "be violated or impaired by legislature fifty ,years held it an affirmative subsequently, and grant power _ all time, could not be interfered with. The cases cited the Chief Justice Stone v. Farmers' Loam,<&Trust Co., U. 307, S. on are pages not authorities to the court ih holding language justify the charter in anot contract. respeqt v. &c. BAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA. 443 Plaintiff,

Argument in Error. of Providence case Bank v. 4 Pet. Billings, 514, was a a that state bank contention-, chartered a was to taxation. not There was no subject kind provision any in the charter that upon it was claimed that such subject, an institution could not be taxed on general principles.

Charles Rimer v. Warren 11 Pet. 419, was a Bridge Bridge, contention that the chartered one legislature, having bridge, was not authorized to charter another over Charles River, between Boston because would Cambridge, injure interests of the first. There was claim that the no property first charter contained affirmative restriction, any any n that it should have a of the business. grant monopoly

In. v. & Philadelphia, Minot Baltimore Rail- Wilmington 18 Wall. the court that road, 206, held, provision the railroad charter, into requiring company annually pay a tax one of one cent treasury quarter per on stock, without words the intent capital indicating that such be in should lieu of all legislature, payment óthér that no further taxation, or different tax should be levied for was not sufficient subsequently any purpose, a contract the State not to show other taxes binding levy-any other purpose. 22 In v. Wall. Pacific Bailey 215, Missouri Magwire, Railroad was from taxation until and it exempted completed, was that after its it should be completion, provided at taxation the rate assessed other real and State on by the. of like value. The contention was that personal property under this a tax statute state could be levied only effect, but court held that had no such road; provision n that it be taxed as other for all could purposes. In 659, v. U. S. Hyde Park, 97 Fertilizing Company the court of a held, the charter majority on at authorized to did not business certain allow carry place it to on continue that after it business became carry nuisance:'

In Commissioners, held, Newton U. S. this court term established,” used in statutes of “permanently seats, Western did States, county not relating establishing ' TERM, . .. Argument Plaintiff in Error.

mean seat where' it so county, was “permanently ” remain;, established should forever but that it. was only per- instead in- manently temporarily provided established (cid:127) said statutes. oftjs. In no these it be that cases, of- unless of the Fertilizing. in there 97 TJ. was affirmative S., Company grant to the power company by. question. They it were cases which was claimed that inference or con- struction such affirmative or contract was grant implied, in the case of the Mr. Justice Fertilizing Company, Swayne, on states the rule as follows: 666, “The rule of con- page in this class of that it struction cases is shall be most strongly the' reasonable doubt is to against corporation. Evéry resolved is to be taken adversely corporation. Nothing as conceded what is in unmistakable terms or except given an clear. The must implication equally lie shown. affirmative. Silence is and doubt is fatal to the claim.” negation - this most rule of construction Applying stringent to this and it must still be held it charter, creates affirmatively contract between and the Territory company*. The Second. the court violates the judgment natural to fix the right belongs every'one his price services' arid of his or its Under our use. form of property constitu- tional it has ever been held to be government the unquestion- able' freeman to^íhave a right every entire perfect in his and estate. 1 Kent property Com. 613. goods ' As was said Lord Aldnut V. 12 Ellenborough Inglis, ,an East, 527, of the of an owner speaking right to charge “ unreasonable amount for the use of warehouse : There his is no doubt that the is general both in principle favored, law arid man fix justice,- every what he price pleases his own or the use of upon it.” property In the case of The-State . 15 Freight -Tax, Wall, 232, 277, Justice Mr. Strong, delivering opinion court, “¥e concede says: . ’. right . of the power óf artificial owners .whether such highways, owners be the State franchises from grantees the State, to exact what - for the use of their they please That ways. an attri- right QO.„u CHICAGO &c.'EÁILWAX.. MINNESOTA. Argument

V for Plaintiff in Error. '. bute of . . The make terms for the ownership. right usé of in the not in franchises, roadway’is grantee the grantor.”

. has no more assume control or man- right of one of these classes than it has of the agement. property to fix other, the use of each, .the inheres right price .of in the owner' thereof the same one as the case other, except as above within the stated,.and bounds of reasonable compen- sation, owner fix for the use of right clothed law awith interest cannot property public ques- tioned than more his not so clothed. right property the authorities cited in the of the Chief Justice By opinion in Munn v. Illinois, IT. S., limita- appears, only tion of the owner of this sort of right his own make rates that he was, should reason- charge only able for use of such no claim was and price made property, that had a to fix But legislature see right charges. Aldnut v. 12 8 East; 521Bolt v. T. B. Inglis, Stennett,

The so in 94 arose on Cases, called, Granger S., IT. reported statutes and 1873, Illinois Iowa and passed Wisconsin, Minnesota 1874. The Wisconsin and Iowa acts were stat- a maximum tariff. The Illinois- and fixing utes Minnesota statutes that commissioners make schedules provided should which should be rates. reasonable prim,a facie

The involved-in the record aside particular questions present from the general question power legislature, were not in of the cases then before the court, except Milwamkeedec. v. whiqh, Railroad Chicago, Ackley, Corrvpomy it would from the but attention received appear opinion, slight ' from the coürt. to take such . Euliy admitting right action proper to secure to necéssary as. people (cid:127)reasonable we charges thereon, transportation deny fix or determine right arbitrarily finally charges and- statute, most ask this court to positive respectfully review the decisions in the cases of again made Peik Munn, in this Ackley respect. OCTOBER TERM, 1889.

446 Argument jn for Plaintiff Error.

That founded power State, police maxim alienum sic uiere tuo ut non is laedas, proper authority statutes regulating management, operation and control of a railroad so far as it affects the protection lives, limbs, comfort, of all safety quiet persons, protection all in the State, admitted. - But we that this deny power gives legislature .the to limit or fix the tolls or right (cid:127) which the would' otherwise have the make. right v. Rutland & Thorpe Railroad Bwrlington Co., Ver- 27 140; S. C. 62 Am. Dec. 625 mont, Hale’s De ; ; Portibus Maris Const. Lim. v. Cooley’s 91; 15 People N. T. Draper, 532; v. 13 N. Y. Wynehamer 378; Aldnut v. People, ubi Inglis, Tiedman’s Limitation of Police sup.j Powers, Parker 231; 109 Mass. Metropolitan 1 Railway, 506; Bl. Com. 160; Marsh, Newland v. 19 Illinois, 376; Ervinds Appeal, 256; Penn. St. 8. C. Am. Dec. 499..

II. court erred in the schedules of rates holding fixed said commission were final and conclusive as to what “ were lawful, reasonable rates, are equal they ones that are lawful, and therefore, contemplation only ones that are law, only reasonable,” instead them as simply holding advisory prima pre- facie court,, to review the sumptively equal, The'

III. court erred in that the rate fixed holding said commission, which is not a fair reasonable rate or com- just to the owner for the service was a lawful pensation required, rate the owner bound was to submit to and and in obey, a of mandamus writ the granting peremptory compelling owner over its line of at rate transport freight the railway fixed.,. so in IY. The court erred that the State Minnesota, holding “ the,

since of an act entitled An Act to passage by Congress Commerce,” 4, has 1887, the regulate approved February the fix, establish tariff rates for the power regulate, over the lines of the freight passengers it Milwaukee & St. Paul an interstate Railway, being Chicago, in traffic. interstate railway engaged &c. BAILWAY CO. v. MINNESOTA. Argument in Defendant Error. and Mr. II. W. Moses E. Childs,

Mr. defendant Clarpjp after error, in question discussing concerning jurisdiction below, the court continued: It remains to whether in the law as inter- inquire question, is in Minnesota; Court conflict'with Supreme preted Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, this law, as state court we considering interpreted by the in mind that, should while the of the Court keep Supreme held that the reasonableness of the rates fixed com- could not be the mission, review, judicial yet did- not the commission an leave answerable in irresponsible body, no. but on the courts, case limited its contrary power of an honest the exercise judgment.

It will relieve discussionof this case from some embar- if it is borne mind rassment, that, the case made by plain- tiff in error the alternative no writ, are made allegations rate established the board would so enforcing of the road affect- the as to to meet earnings' impair ability revenues, or to of its affect its seriously obligations Neither is it claimed in error that it is by plaintiff protected contract or charter 'from by any express exemption legislative interference the matter of rates, con- fixing company itself as above stated, tenting allegation “ ” commission fixed unjustly, unreasonably oppressively and that rate, establishment of such rate was a jpro tcmto of the in error. taking plaintiff

This case then involves determination of the can question, what is a reasonable rate for legislature prescribe transr a common carrier, portation freight passengers by when unrestrained in the charter by any. provision ? view of the of this court sustain repeated adjudications /In to establish the rates which com: legislatures ing right mon carriers and to declare action may charge, by legislative are what reasonable confess to rates, we some hesitation an extended entering discussion question. Illinois, 133,134, Mwm 94 U.

In S. opinion OCTOBEB TEEM,

Argument for Defendant Error. the late Chief Justice is to found "Waite, be a history legis- lative control clothed with as well property public interest, as also an upon exhaustive discussion which principles control rests. legislative

In the consideration of the involved in that questions case, afteir court, history reviewing contended for the position supporting ample pertinent illustrations, says:

“ It is insisted, the owner of is en- however, property titled to a reasonable even use, compensation though reasonable, be clothed with a what is interest, public is a and not a judicial legislative question. “ As has been been shown, has other- already practice wise. In countries the common law where it has prevails, been from time immemorial to customary declare what shall be a reasonable under' such compensation fix circumstances, or, more to perhaps speaking, properly maximum which made would be unreason- beyond any charge able. contracts, Undoubtedly private relating .mere' matters in which the has no interest, what is reasonable public must be ascertained But this is because judicially. legis- lature has no control over such contract. matters So, too, which do affect as to interest, and which public legis- lative control be if are no exercised, there may statutory regu- lations' must determine courts what is subject, reasonable. The fact is the at controlling power regulate n If all. exists, establish the maximum of right as one of the is In charge, means fact, regulation, implied. the common-law which be rule, reason- requires charge able, is itself a toas Without it, owner regulation price. could will, make his rates at yield compel public his terms, the use. forego

“ But a mere common-law of trade or business regulation may statute. A has no no vested changed by person property, interest, rule of That the common law. one of only the forms of and is more than no sacred municipal law, other. been created have Bights common law cannot be taken without due but away process; &c. -RAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA.

Argument for Defendant in Error. the law as a rule of itself, conduct, at changed or even at will, whim, unless the legislature, prevented' constitutional limitations. the by Indeed, office of great is to statutes defects in the common law as remedy are they and to it to the of time and developed, circum- adapt changes stances. To limit the rate of for services rendered in charge or for the use of employment, which the public property an has is interest, which public only changing regulation existed before. It establishes no new the but law, principle a new effect to ah old one. only gives

“We know that -this is a be which but abused; power may this is no its existence. For argument against protection abuses must resort to the by legislatures against people not to the courts.” polls,

See, also, Iowa, dé RaAl/roadv. Chicago,Burlington Quincy 94 U. S. Peih v. 155; dé Northwestern 94 Chicago Railway, IT. S. Milwaukee 164; dé St. Paul v. Rail/road Chicago, 94 U. S. Winona dé Peter 179; St. Railroad v. Ackley, 94 IT. S. 180. Blake, In v. 108 Illinois, IT. S. 526, 531, court, Ruggles citing “ It was determined Cases, referring Granger says: £ limit the a State amount railroad com may by charges for fares and unless restrained some con

panies freights in the charter.’ . tract . . The its company by original charter was authorized to transport passengers property if and to receive therefor. there had been This, compensation more,, under the rule stated Munn v. would, nothing 94 and the cases U. S. several railroad decided IlUnois, time, at the same at reasonable carry require to fix the rates and léave the at maximum liberty what would reasonable.” of a charter, effect Discussing provision fix which directors to amended, rates, board of empowered “ in a the court : section When, therefore, says, page declares that no shall be the charter expressly by-law the laws of the we -find State, made is in conflict with the con that the rates to be levied collected of charge are to be veyance regulated by by persons pxxxrv voi.. —29 TERM,

Argument for Defendant Error. laws, is conclusion irresistible can only ' be collected as ate allowed laws the State. This that, in the .absence of direct on the implies legislation subject; ovér the rates power -directors only common law limitation for in reasonableness; the absence of a statute or other indication of .the appropriate legislative State, .will, the law forms of .the common la-ws part to' n whichthe must conform. But since, -corporate by-laws absence.of some contract, restraining establish a maximum of rates railroad changed companies- .of follows that persons property, .and when a maximum is so established the rates fixed the di ptherwise rectors imist conform to its requirements, by - laws will be laws.” Instead repugnant Buggies Illinois rule- laid niodifying Cases, Granger down we insist1 it is a affirmance of that-rule. plain case which it was the rule in -the urged-'modified Another ,v. ¡& is Gases case of Granger Farmers' Loan Trust Stone the. n Co., 116’ IT. after S.„:307; the' Oases, referring Granger court says:. “ From what has is been it not said, inferred that this of limitation or is itself without limit. This power regulation is not a and limitation power- regulate power destroy, not the' Under equivalent .pretence'of regu- confiscation.x fares and the State cannot railroad- a lating freights; require or corporation without nei- carry reward; persons property it ther can do that which amounts to law a in taking private use without or without property public just compensation, due law. What would have this effect we need process not of. now because no-tariff has been fixed the commis- say, by yet the statute sion, .and ‘that of-Mississippi expressly provides in all trials of cases for a violation tariff brought ¿s fixed it be shown charges, ” defence that tariff sucjj. so fixed' is unjust.’ here will-doubtless principles expressed pressed upon, the court it case at force, insisted great being the rates have been but said that- fixed,, bar. it-may be reply all-the Oases, the court called nearly Granger was a law which had in fact fixed rate. pass upon &c. v. MINNESOTA. RAILWAY CO. 451 Argument for Defendant in Error. in the the return to the writ of outset, as stated

However, in the bar contains no mandamus case at allegations that the of the law would a claim could operation support carrier to without transport persons property require amount to a or would reward, taking private property The most that is -for use Avithout just compensation. public is that the rate so established is and unreason- unjust alleged terms that it amounts to a and the statement able, general due of thé without tanto jpro taking property last law. But as was said the court ease process cited: “ the use of railroads in a State, General statutes regulating rates, maximum when transportation, fixing do not contracts, not forbidden necessarily deprive charter a railroad within the corporation, owning operating within the of its without due of law, State, process of the Fourteenth Amendment Constitution meaning nor take United from States, away corporation of the laws.” 'Munn-v. 94 U. S. Illinois, 113, protection Railroad v. 96 S. 134, Richmond, 521, 529; Go. 0. 135; ./Spring Works Water U. S. Schottler, 347, Valley S. con- Beidelman, In Dow v. U.' court says, a, law. of Arkansas maximum rate carry- cerning fixing “ Without of the sum invested by passengers: any proof ing or its court has no trustees, corporation, reorganized would under if it circumstances have means, power, that the rate of a mile three cents fixed of determining that there is unreasonable. Still less does appear amounts, to a of confiscation as taking has been prop- due of law.” without erty process the 174, 128 TJ. S. In Co. v. prim' Georgia Banking Smith; , sanction. contended received for judicial ciple again unbroken, this court decisions of Thus line of we an have decided Illinois,- Munn v. with the-'case of commencing Railroad, cáse, <&' and Georgia terminating Go, in 1888, decided Smith, propo- Banking support or chatter sition stipula- that when unrestrained contraht -by what is determine tion, just of a State may legislature OCTOBER TÉ&M, 1889.. ' Opinion of the Court. and reasonable rate a common carrier to charge freight passengers; question reasonableness rate question de- legislative termination, when so ceases determined, be the subject of judicial inquiry;

' (cid:127) Mr. O. .W. closed Gaudy appellant.

n jMjr. Justice Blatchfoed, after the cáse as 'stating above1 delivered the of the court. reported, opinion Court Minnesota is .opinion Supreme reported pf, in 38 281. In it Minnesota, , the court in the first con- place . the statute on the strued as'to whether the court question held, tpe itself-had to entertain jurisdiction proceeding, w¿ that it Of óannot course, had. revie# decision. It next to consider the as to proceeded the nature question . extent the commission granted powers in the statute rates of matter On-that fixing, charges. “ it said : It seems to if that, us means language any it is evident that. the intention thing, perfectly expressed is that-the .the rates recommended published the commission have in the (assuming they proceeded out should be not jmanner-pointed act) simply advisory, nor merely jjrima but final reasonable, equal fade' conclusive as to what are lawful or and reasonable equal' that, charges; with the proceedings compel compliance rates thus the law neither nor published, allows contemplates issue to be as to- their and1 inquiry-had made equality reasonableness act, fact. Under the provisions rates thus are the ones that are lawful, published only (cid:127)therefore, that are law, ones only contemplation like thé reasonable;' and, hence, proceedings there' the- no fact to is, traverse, said present, -before, except recpm-- (cid:127)violation with the law compliance refusing mendations of Indeed, commission. the language act is so on that can add plain point argument (cid:127)'nothing' to its force.” &c. RAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA. 453

Opinion of the Court. It then to examine the of the proceeded question validity act under the constitution of as to the- whether Minnesota, authorized to confer commission upon legislature'was latter It the statute. held as that,' given powers had the itself power regulate legislature charges it could .the of fix- to a commission railroads, power delegate or determi- and could make ing nation, charges, judgment as to were reasonable what commission final and conclusive. Paul Milwaukee St. Railway Company Chicago, The line under the laws organized corporation Wisconsin. (cid:127) it in case ex- of railroad owned and operated by present Minnesota,

tends-from Calmar, Iowa,'to LeRoy,"m to St. from Owatonna and Paul Faribault, Leroy, through the line from Calmar to St. Paul Minneapolis Minneapolis, and be- known the “Iowa and Minnesota Division,” being from the where crosses Minnesota ing wholly point between and Minnesota. was constructed state line Iowa It (cid:127) Minnesota to under a charter by' Territory granted an arid Cedar Railroad.Company, by Valley Minneapolis 166, 325,.to e. act March Laws 1, 4856, 1856, p. approved the cross- á railroad from the Iowa at or near construct line, -of line the Cedar River, of said valley through ing to, that act Strait River Section of provided Minneapolis. have the directors should power corporation, needful, “the make rules, all touching regulations by-laws toll and the the same; rates manner collecting of. unite

section should 13, have power -or there- railroad with railroad was. then, any'other, of Minnesota, after constructed be, the’Territory might have Territories, States- or should power adjoining it's, consolidate stock with other company companies. (cid:127) c. 1857, an .act March Stat. 99, 195,) By :3, (11 passed"' the. of land to of the United States made a Congress grant railroads. to aid in certain Minnesota Territory constructing an act of the of' the May By Territory, approved n 22,1857, of such session, extra (Lavds p. portion' 20,) was Cedar ¡énd Valley conferred grant Minneapolis TEEM, OCTOBEE

Opinion of the Court. Railroad in the 1860, State of Min Company. .Subsequently, nesota, became the owner of the by proper proceedings, rights, that franchises and of an act company. By approved c. Laws 17, March the .10,1862, 1862, State (Special p. 226,) the Faribault Cedar incorporated' Minneapolis, Yalley Railroad to it all the franchises and conveyed Company, the Cedár Railroad Com 'property Minneapolis Yalley which the State had so an pany ; acquired by approved act Laws 1, 1864, February 1864, name of (Special p. 164,)-the the Faribault and Cedar Railroad Com Minneapolis, Yalley was to that the of Minnesota Central pany changed Railway rpad That constructed the Company. from Minne company . and St. in Paul Minnesota; the from apolis LeRoy, road in to Calmar, and thence in Iowa, the lat LeRoy McGregor, ter was consolidated State, with it. In the entire 1867, August, road from Owa- McGregor, by Calmar, Austin, LeRoy, way tonna and Paul Faribault, St. was con Minneapolis, to the Milwaukee and St. Paul Com veyed Chicago, Railway which succeeded to the all franchises so to the pany, granted Cedar Railroad Minneapolis Yalley Company. - It is contended that State railway company1 - Minnesota is bound contract made by by Territory the charter and Cedar Rail granted Minneapolis Yalley road that a contract existed' that Company; company .should have the its rates of that power toll; regulating, the State that .by legislation infringing upon right impairs n obligation of the that no contract; there was provision charter or in statute to the any general. reserving Territory or to the 'State to alter or amend the an'd right charter; that no. or of the subsequent legislation of Territory could directors of fix- deprive qómpanyof power its rates of. toll,, subject only general provision law. that such rates should be reasonable. of,

But we the' áre opinion general language ninth section of the chartér and Cedar Yal- Minneapolis Railroad cannot held to constitute ley an Company irrepeal- able contract With that that it should have the right for all future time to from rates free all toll, prescribe control the State. legislature.of by CHICAGO &c.-'BAILWAY CO. MINNESOTA.

Opinion of the Court. was this court It Pennsylvania held Railroad Co. v. accordance with U. Miller, S. course long in the state -courts and-in this decisions both court, a rail takes its charter, road kindred corporation containing pro with that to the' vision law subject of the question, general and to such be made in such State,- changes may general constitutional future future law, subject provisions and in the absence of legislation, any-prior-contract general it from to such future liability exempting general legislation involved; matter respect exemption either from future a constitutional legislation, general pro an vision or act cannot-be admitted to legislature, it is unless it.follows an given expressly, exist.unless clear with words. express implication equally There is the mere section-9 of nothing grant power, by the to the directors of the to make charter, needful company, the rates rules and of toll and the man- touching regulations the can be same, ner of collecting properly interpreted that to hold State as us the .with its authorizing parted general at itself to time in the when authority regulate, future it. of toll the rates to be so, fit collected the do. might by se^ company. Loan and 307,

In Farmers' 116 U. S. Co., Stone Trust is the whole the authorities are- .considered, fully and the conclusion is the of a. cited, arrived-at, right to limit the a State railroad reasonably amount charges.'by company persons propertywithin cannot be its its jurisdiction granted by away legislature, words of unless or in law; by positive words equivalent grant that a statute which to a railroad grants company “ n from time to time the tolls- fix, right regulate receive them tó be received for does and charges by transportation,” of its not. the limits within deprive power, .the of. its as controlled authority, by Constitution-..of- general to act States, TTnited the tolls and reasonableness so fixed'.’and But, this'con after charges regulated. reaching said the court clusion, “From what has thus been (p; 331): it to- is not be inferred that this or said, limitation power TERM,

Opinion Uie Court. is without limit. itself This is regulation power regulate anot and limitation is not the power destroy, équiyalent of confiscation. Under fares and pretence regulating freights, State cannot railroad require corporation carry persons or without reward; neither can it do that which in law amounts to use taking private property public (cid:127)without or due without compensation, of law.” just process

There no therefore, contract being, chartered right railroad which can company from prevent legislature in some form the regulating is whether the form transportation, question adopted

' case is valid. present The construction the statute put upon by Supreme Court Minnesota must be court, for the accepted case, conclusive and not purposes present to be here as to reexamined propriety accuracy. Supreme Court declares it authoritatively expressed-inten- tion of the of Minnesota, statute, rates recommended and if published by in the manner out not act, are proceeds pointed simply nor advisory, merely but prima, reasonable, equal facie final and conclusive as to what are and reasonable equal that the law neither nor allows charges; contemplates issue to be made or to be had as to their inquiry equality under the fact; reasonableness that, rates statute, the commission are the ones that are published law- only and, therefore, ful, of law the ones that contemplation only are in a reasonable; that, for a proceeding mandamus under the there is fact statute, no to traverse the violation of except law in not with the recom- complying mendations of the In other commission. words, the although railroad is forbidden -to establish rates that are not company and reasonable, there no is courts to equal power'in stay the. the of hands the it if chooses establish commission, to rates that are and unreasonable. unequal

This the construction of the statute which we are being by bound in that, we are of case, the considering- present opinion so construed, it conflicts with the Constitution United KAILWAY CO. v. MINNESOTA. .457 CHICAGO.&c.

Opinion of the Court. in the the railroad com- complained by particulars States It its to a company deprives right judicial pany. due under the law, forms with by process investigation, the wisdom of successive for by ages machinery provided truth of matter contro- investigation judicially therefor, as absolute substitutes au versy, finality,’ of a action railroad in view of the which, commission powders to conceded it the state cannot be as court, by regarded ;with clothed functions judicial possessing 'machinery a court justice. 8 of

Under section Court statute, which Supreme Minnesota is the one which relates to the matter' of says only' the commission of schedules fixing by rates, general and which it section, for says, fully exclusively provides that and is all the commission itself, subject, complete (cid:127)is dn it is, do filing required railroad.company ” its find schedules of copies charges, any part “ is in it thereof and-then unreasonable, any respect unequal is authorized and directed to the' compel company change the same and shall commission adopt charge’ “ declare to that it is reasonable,” .and, end, equal .be -to inform the in what its required company respect writing are and unreasonable. is charges unequal hearing pro- No. no for, vided summons or notice before the to the company commission has found is to what it what it find and declared is declare, no to intro- opportunity provided company which; duce witnesses before the in fact, nothing has the semblance of due of law and ; process although, case, it to the decision'of the com- present that, appears prior mission, it and the before company appeared agent, comnj'ssion the rates investigated charged milk,- it not does what the character transporting yet appear 'of the was or how the result was at. arrived investigation the second section of statute

By .question,' pro- .the vided' all made a common carrier charges shall be passengers equal reasonable. Under this the carrier has a provision, right make and reasonable for such transportation. TEEM, 1889. OCTOBEE

458 Opinion of the Court. the rate of return ease, In the the alleged charge present and the reasonable, not the commission was fixed equal the of the statute Court held that company deprived Supreme of the reason- to show that judicially. question right The for a railroad ableness of charge rate n .company, the element of reasonableness as it. does involving and as is both'as regards public, company regards for due requiring eminently judicial investigation, question If law determination. the' is for its process rates for use of the reasonable charging power deprived in the takes (cid:127)of its and such absence deprivation place property, it is of an machinery, judicial deprived investigation by thus,' use of substance effect, lawful its property, and in due of law vio- .of without itself, process in' so the United far States; lation of the Constitution other as it is thus deprived, persons permitted while are their the com- invested receive.reasonable capital, profits laws. is protection pany deprived equal article 10 of constitution is section of provided by It for that “lands betaken of Minnesota of 1857, public fran of granting the. way, purpose 'corporation “ and that all use,” chise of way corporations, being public common carriers, .the-right way pursuance enjoying be the min shall bound to section, this carry provisions and manufactures on other eral, agricultural productions It is thus 'the and reasonable terms.” . perceived one statute enacted of section 2 of the in-question provision constitution of Minnesota. with the conformity writ of mandamus this issuing peremptory of. the because in violation Con- was, unlawful,- case therefore, ttat stitution of the and it is States; United necessary should relief error administered favor of plaintiff Court a reversal awarding Supreme judgment it not- an for further that-writ, instruction proceedings inconsistent with the coui't. opinion (cid:127) court, may In delivered view Of the opinion taken other to be further ’impossible' proceedings - if mandamus, than to for a dismiss proceeding CO. v. MINNESOTA. &c. EAILWAY Miller, Opinion: Concurring J, court should adhere to .its under that, the opinion statute, cannot the reasonableness of the rates investigate judicially commission. the Still, (cid:127)fixed the will be ooen by question review; this court the is, that the /Su- judgment judgment of of Qourt Minnesota, j, award-- May preme entered of a writ mandamus this be re- ing case, peremptory of the case be remanded to with an versed, court, n instruction not with inconsistent proceedings further the this cowrt. opinion of

Me. Justice Millek concurring. I-concur some with hesitation the of court, the judgment but wish a to make few I which suggestions principles think should of in the Not this.class courts. govern questions to make á nor a dissent, favor desiring prolonged argumént of I I will form of have, views state them the may (cid:127) propositions.

1. In the business of carriers limited "to regard.to .common State, within a has the points single legislative of to establish the rates for such power compensation, carriage. 2. The which has do can be legislature power .the exercised a which-it to act commission authorize through ¿s in the such matter, the one the by appointed legislature the act under .now Minnesota by consideration: - 3, Neither the nor such under legislature acting commission the establish authority, the, arbitrarily .can legislature, rates, without a- tariff of regard '’justice right .-ior such is so unreasonable as-to transportation, practically 'of the valúe the destroy property persons engaged carry:- one nor hand, business on the so exorbitant and extrava- ing as to in' utter gant disregard rights public the úse of on other. either n ‘theseclasses 4. In there is an cases ultimate courts,, for relief remedy by parties' aggrieved, in the court's oppressive against legislation, especially States, United where tariff rates established TERM, 1889. Miller, Opinion:

Concurring J. is the commission such as either by legislature by due without of his law’. process deprive party has to to But until the been declare judiciary appealed whether made, by legislature by regulations for the reasons the tariff commission, mentioned, voidable is and must be submitted to land, rates so fixed the law of with whom both the carrier and the he deals. parties if mode 6. That not relief . only, the'proper, judicial tariff of rates established against bill in its its unreason- chancery asserting its able Constitution of the conflict character- a decree of court States, United asking forbidding from such fare as or establish- excessive, corporation exacting rates as limits of a collect the within the ing right being for the service rendered. just compensation until it is not indi- That this is done for each competent vidual with carrying corporation, having dealings to each individual who demands corporation regard its to raise a contest the courts over the services, questions n which to be settled and conclusive ought general method.

8.- But an is made to dase, where application present Court of the State to the common car- Supreme compel railroad to services riers, namely, companies, perform their, to do for the them duty requires general public, which which is to equivalent establishing by judicial proceeding fixed reasonableness of the ‘the I (cid:127)think the court has to into same duty right inquire ‘the the tariff of rates established reasonableness of. (cid:127)commission' before that it would if have relief, granting (cid:127)called so to do bill in chancery. .a

9. I do not that was validity agree necessary the-action of the have commission notice should that previous been to all common in the rates carriers -interested given nor established, them, more than one any particular any. it would have been not, I think it is which necessary, have such notice if had established given it. :rates enactment. by .legislative

CHICAGO &c. CO. v. RAILWAY MINNESOTA. 461 Opinion:

Dissenting Bradley, Lamar, Gray, JJ. 10. But when the becomes a question one, judicial of these rates are to be validity justice established or re- aof it is court, jected judgment necessary railroad interested in the fare to be .corporations considered should have notice and -a have to be heard on the right ques- have, tion to such which I fare, out as relating pointed judicial For the refusal of the Court of Minnesota questions. Supreme to receive evidence on-this I think the case subject, ought be reversed on the that this.is a due ground process denial.of of law a which takes the of the com- proceeding if this-be a construction of the just statute Min- pany, it is for that reason nesota void. Bbadley Me. Justice whom concurred Mb. (with Justice

Gbay and Mb. Justice Lam:ab) dissenting. I cannot to the decision of this case. It agree court overrules Munn v. 94 U. Illinois, S. and the practically several railroad cases that were decided at the same time. The of those was that the principle governing cases regulation and settlement fares railroads and other ac public is commodations and not a legislative prerogative judicial one. This is a which I as of principle regard impor great tance. When a railroad is it is for the chartered, the State .purpose performing duty belongs itself. It is chartered as an the State agent furnishing accommodation. build its railroads public might' if it fit. It saw and its duty prerogative provide means of between one of its part territory intercomipunication And is and another. this devolved duty upon legislative If the commissions department. legislature parties, private or individuals, whether it corporations perform duty, is its to fix the fares which freights' prerogative they for their When a road or a services. may charge merely fix canal it is for the constructed, is be legislature to who use it a is tolls to be those when ; paid .by road, build a but to on chartered not* carry public only is for' the to fix the it, it legislature for such transportation: charges TERM, 1889. Lamar, Gray, Bradley, Opinion: SJ.

Dissenting reasonable, should that all it is said' be charges But can be and it exacted; is reasonable none but charges that is a reasonable what is a judicial that charge question. urged involv one, it is legislative On contrary, preeminently as well as of remuneration; considerations policy ing a maximum determined is legislature, by fixing usually if afterwards, in the charter company, charges is contract. If this maximum not are not tied hands cannot interfere. When the rates are the courts exceeded, the discretion of are left to determined,, not thus they ,the cpndition express implied company, subject declared so stat reasonable; shall1 when they express, the statute is ; law, silent; ute the common when implied, by common law effect virtue of the will. has legislative . at rates Thus, the either fixes the which charges legislature deems declares that shall be reasonable; merely they it and it case, is the latter where what is reasonable;' only left that the reasonable is courts have jurisdiction open, I .When the that the declares legislature subject. repeat: reasonable, is the same or, shall thing, charges allows common rule to that effect law prevail; there; leaves the then resort be had to the courts matter tó whether the are reasonable. judicially inquire charge's and not till is it a But then, Then, judicial question. if it has the and it is its legislature right, prerogative, chooses. to exercise tó declare- is it, what reasonable. from This is where I differ of the court. just majority if effect, terms, not in that the final tribunal of .They say is the arbitrament I it is the I say judiciary; legislature. hold it is a not a one, unless legislative question, judicial or the is the same has law, made (which thing,) it shall be rule judicial, by-prescribing ; reasonable, there. leaving It an issue' delicate to make always the courts thing they legislative department government, should never do so if .it is it. the decision to avoid By possible now made we not the declare, that the effect, judiciary, ' is the final arbiter in the of fares legislature, regulation &c. RAILWAY CO.’ v. MINNESOTA. 463- Opinion:

Dissenting Bradley,. Lamar, Gray, JJ. of railroads and the freights other charges accommo- public dations. It is an assumption on the authority part it which, seems to me, with all due judiciary- deference to the it has no judgment my brethren, to make. The right asser- tion of this court makes it jurisdiction by duty every. court of state or general jurisdiction, federal, entertain the decisions of the complaints boards of against commis- sioners the States to appointed by their regulate railroads; all courts are bound the Constitution of by the United States, the same as we Our is jurisdiction are.. merely appellate. of this

The more incongruity position will.appear distinctly' a reference to the nature of the by cases under consideration. The before the commission question presented in each case was one to the reasonableness of relating simply the rates — charged by companies, more or less. In question the one case the three cents charged per gallon milk between certain carrying commission points. deemed this to be unreasonable, reduced the cents. charge 2-£ In the other case the car for company charged $1.25 per cars .handling over lines switching empty within for loaded city $1.50 and the com- Minneapolis, cars; mission decided that car was a $1.00 sufficient per charge all cases. The that the companies fixed complain -low,"and the commission áre are unreasonably they their without due deprived property law; process are- entitled to a trial a court and they are not jury, barred the decisions of a commission. The legislative state court held that the had the to establish legislature right commission, such a and that its determinations are binding- and final, and that-the courts cannot review This them.- (cid:127) court reverses that now decision, holds the In contrary. - the state-court was and the establishment my judgment right, and its -no were violation of proceedings, - the constitutional prohibition against depriving persons their without due of law. process it

I think clear, well settled perfectly decisions court, of this have fixed'the rates might If it had done it would have so, done question. through TERM, 1889/ Lamar, OpinionBradley, Gray;

Dissenting JJ. tó of committees subject, the aid appointed investigate the facts before to cite tó information, parties, get all acquire No one could have to decide and them, finally report. And if of law. said that this was not due legisla- .the process do its this, committees, ture -itself could pror acting by such bodies, to the usual forms adopted ceeding according not I can see-no reason duty why- delegate might good case, the board -this commissioners, to board of a charged, and rear as to fix so was, charges, regulate command all the board would .have at its sonable. Such a the reasonable- at the truth and means ascertaining getting has. committee fates which a of. freights, legislative ness and examine or it swear witnesses not, par- It. might, might it would character, of an ties. Its duties administrative being (cid:127)' All means examination have the- widest for inquiry.' scope — command, at its would be just and information knowledge which cre- of -the be at the command would as'they tribunal is a court, not ated it. Such a proper a though body, . it. for the duties imposed-upon 96 U. S. Orleans, New v. City the case Davidson . In boai’d-of of a we decided that the appointment assessors' -but the dué of law, not

for was only process assessing damages the burden .to method for distribute assessments making proper it. No who are those benefited by work amongst public for of boards one the constitutionality propriety questions or for the taxation, improvement assessing for. to establish or of like, sewers commissions streets,- other seats, many things appertaining' county doing affairs; Due the administrative process management public court. It does not merely requires of law always require, .a such tribunals and as are m proceedings proper hand. In the Railroad Commission 307, we Cases, 116 U. S. held that a board of commissioners is tribunal proper rates of fare and determining on the rail proper freight roads aof state. It seems me, that the law of therefore, did Minnesota not that -was not in. accord prescribe anything ance with .due of law in such a pi’ocess board, creating it-with the investing powers question. CO. v. MINNESOTA. RAILWAY &c. Opinion: Bradley, Lamar, Gray,

Dissenting JJ. decisions of the board are It is final complained the. are the decisions of the So courts in and without appeal. . within their There must be a final matters tri- jurisdiction. somewhere for bunal the world. every deciding question all take tribunals. All human institu- Injustice place — courts as well as tions are imperfect legis- commissions tribunal Whatever has latures. decisions are jurisdiction, final unless an and conclusive appeal given therefrom. what is the lawful tribunal is, for' always important question ' In case? in the case, my judgment, particular present the board tribunal was of commis- legislature,

proper which it created sioners purpose. not in terms, effect,

If cases are yet present treated as if the constitutional that no state shall prohibition was, take —- use without public private property just compensation, if it' our and as was duty the But judge compensation. clause in the there is no such constitution of the United States. The Fifth Amendment is the federal prohibitory upon govern not ment the state In this mat only, governments. — ter, taken for just compensation use,— property public their make own states or' constitution, regulations, by are otherwise. They the federal Constitution only by required “ due It law.” in was Davidson process provide alleged 96 U. Orleans, v. New S. that the assessed was property -not benefited but he’d we that that improvement; was a matter with which would not we interfere; question whether there was due was, of law. 106. If a process p. state renders court an cannot we it. unjust remedy judgment, not

I do mean to that the or its say constituted legislature, board or other commissioners, not legislative may agency, so act- as to of their without due deprive parties property of law. The Constitution pi’ocess contemplates possibility an of such invasion of But, within their rights. acting juris- in these diction, cases have (as invasion should they done,) be clear unmistakable to the case within cate- bring cases, of the kind in exists before us. The gory. Nothing did not legislature, commission, exceed its establishing and the commission, did power; cases, not acting upon (cid:127) vol. cxxxrv —30 (cid:127) TERM, 1889. Lamar, Opinion: Bradley, Gray,

Dissenting JJ. with fraudulent and was not exceed chargeable jurisdiction, difference of as to was a behavior. There judgment merely without the commission and amount, between companies, the former to do intent on the injus- indication of part if as the mat- did, but The board have erred; they tice. may their decision was ter within their was rightful'jurisdiction, could be im- their conclusive -unless final and proceedings mere arbi- fraud. property Deprivation peached fraud on the on the part part legislature, trary power on which are the judicial only grounds There was, their action. relief against' may sought at all. cases There these no truth, deprivation as to enjoyment propertjb was a merely regulation in matter entirely authority, made competent strictly within its jurisdiction. invested with too much- are be that our

It may legislatures influences so are, as dangerous open, they power, But such is individuals, interests of society. corporations form of our government; the Constitution republican in a it until can corrected are bound abide by we too become arbitrary If our legislatures way. legitimate have a remedy always of their people exercise powers, them consti- restrain at time their hands; they .in remain But so they limitations. long tutional invested legislative that ordinarily belong powers those to exercise are entitled they .government, branch. is that of the which, regu- my judgment, powers, amongst intercommuni- means of and other lation of railroads public those' who own and the cation, changes burdens them are authorized public. impose upon . and Mr. Jus- Mr. G-ray am authorized say I Justice opinion. me dissenting tice agree Lamar

Case Details

Case Name: Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 24, 1890

Citation: 134 U.S. 418

Docket Number: 762

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS