State ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
Citation | 37 N.W. 782,38 Minn. 281 |
Parties | State of Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company |
Decision Date | 20 April 1888 |
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Original proceeding by mandamus, to compel the respondent to obey an order of the railroad and warehouse commission in regard to its milk rates between Faribault and Owatonna and St. Paul and Minneapolis. The information and the alternative writ, after setting out the organization of the commission the appointment and qualification of the commissioners and their secretary, and the authority given the commission by Laws 1887, c. 10, to compel common carriers to adopt such rates as the commission shall declare equal and reasonable and the provision in the act subjecting any common carrier in case of neglect to comply with the rates fixed by the commission, to a writ of mandamus to be issued by any judge of this court on application of the commission, proceed substantially as follows: Respondent is a Wisconsin corporation, and a common carrier by rail from Owatonna, Faribault, Dundas, Northfield and Farmington, to the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, all in this state, and owns and operates a line of railway extending from Calmar, in Iowa, to Leroy in this state, and thence, through Owatonna and Faribault, and the other points named, to St. Paul and Minneapolis, and known as the Iowa and Minnesota division of its railway. It holds its right of way under the provisions of section 4, article 10, of the constitution of the state, and is bound to carry the mineral, agricultural, and other products or manufactures on equal and reasonable terms.
On the 22d of June, 1887, the Board of Trades Union of Farmington Northfield, Faribault and Owatonna, an association composed of the boards of trade of those places, filed with the commission a petition in writing, complaining, among other things, that the respondent, being such common carrier as before stated, charges for transportation of milk to St. Paul and Minneapolis four cents per gallon from Owatonna, and three cents per gallon from Faribault, Dundas, Northfield and Farmington, and that such charges are unreasonably high, and subject the traffic in milk between those points to unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, and praying that such rates be declared unreasonable, and that respondent be compelled to change them and adopt such rates as the commission shall declare to be equal and reasonable. A copy of the petition is annexed to and made a part of the information and writ. On filing the petition, a statement of the charges which were made was, on June 29, 1887, sent by the commission to the respondent, and on July 6, 1887, the respondent was called on by the commission to satisfy the complaint or answer it in writing at the office of the commission in the capital at St. Paul, on July 13, 1887. The respondent did not satisfy the complaint within the time specified, but filed with the commission its written answer, a copy of which is attached to the information and writ, stating that its rates were unreasonably low; that 25 per cent. more for the same commodity is charged into New York for equal distances and one hundred times larger volume in favor of New York; that the rate of one-tenth per cent. per gallon on milk handled on passenger trains one mile is not unreasonable, is not first class rates by freight train, and was made low to encourage the trade, under the hope and promise that when the trade was fostered it would be advanced. At the time and place appointed for hearing the petition, the petitioner and the respondent both appeared, and the commission proceeded to investigate the complaint, and upon such investigation the commission found that the respondent's charges for transporting milk over its Iowa & Minnesota division from Owatonna and Faribault to St. Paul and Minneapolis were 3 cents per gallon in ten-gallon cans, and that such rates were unequal and unreasonable, and found that the company's tariff of rates for such transportation, filed and published by respondent as provided by Laws 1887, c. 10, was unequal and unreasonable; and the commission declared that a rate of 2 1/2 cents per gallon in ten-gallon cans was and is an equal and reasonable rate for the service. After completing its investigation, the commission, on August 4, 1887, made a report in writing, which included the findings of fact on which it based its conclusion, together with its recommendation as to what tariff should be substituted for the tariff which it had found unequal and unreasonable, and also a specification of the rates which the commission declared to be equal and reasonable. A copy of the report is annexed to the information and writ; it is addressed to the respondent, and is as follows:
The report was entered of record by the commission, and a copy furnished to the complainants and to the respondent, with a notice to respondent to desist from charging or receiving such unequal or unreasonable rates. The respondent for more than ten days after such notice neglected to substitute for its tariff that recommended by the commission, whereupon the commission made, published, and posted at all the stations of respondent's line in this state, prior to November 12, 1887, the tariff recommended by it, of which the following is a copy:
(Here follows a copy of the report and notice to respondent already set forth.)
(Seal) "E. S. Warner, Secretary."
The respondent neglects and refuses to carry out the recommendation so made,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deconstructing nondelegation.
...they sustain the challenged statute. See, e.g., State ex rel. R.R. & Warehouse Comm'n v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R.R. Co., 37 N.W. 782, 786-88 (Minn. 1888); Cincinnati, Wilmington & Zanesville R.R. Co. v. Comm'rs of Clinton County, 1 Ohio St. 77, 87-91 (1852). (7.) E.g., S......