ssenger railway rates are
confiscatory, all parts of the system within the State (including
sleeping, parlor, and dining cars) should be embraced in the
computation; and the unremunerative parts should not be excluded because
built primarily for interstate traffic or not required to supply local
transportation needs.--_See:_ Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson _v._
Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 434-435 (1913); Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. _v._
Public Utilities Commission, 274 U.S. 344 (1927); Groesbeck _v._ Duluth,
S.S. & A.R. Co., 250 U.S. 607 (1919). The maxim that a legislature
cannot delegate legislative power is qualified to permit creation of
administrative boards to apply to the myriad details of rate schedules
the regulatory police power of the State. To prevent the conferring upon
an administrative agency of authority to fix rates for public service
from being a mere delegation of legislative power, and therefore void,
the legislature must enjoin upon it a certain course of procedure and
certain rules of decision in the performance of its functions, with
which the agency must substantially comply to validate its action.
Wichita Railroad & L. Co. _v._ Public Utilities Commission, 260 U.S. 48
(1922).
[199] Reagan _v._ Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 154 U.S. 362, 397
(1894).
[200] Interstate Commerce Commission _v._ Illinois C.R. Co., 215 U.S.
452, 470 (1910).
[201] 231 U.S. 298, 310-313 (1913).
[202] Des Moines Gas Co. _v._ Des Moines, 238 U.S. 153 (1915).
[203] Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson _v._ Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 452
(1913).
[204] Knoxville _v._ Water Company, 212 U.S. 1 (1909).
[205] Smith _v._ Illinois Bell Teleph. Co., 270 U.S. 587 (1926).
[206] Willcox _v._ Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19 (1909).
[207] 174 U.S. 739, 750, 754 (1899). _See also_ Minnesota Rate Cases
(Simpson _v._ Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 433 (1913).
[208] San Diego Land & Town Co. _v._ Jasper, 189 U.S. 439, 441, 442
(1903). _See also_ Van Dyke _v._ Geary, 244 U.S. 39 (1917); Georgia Ry.
_v._ R.R. Comm., 262 U.S. 625, 634 (1923).
[209] For its current position, _see_ Crowell _v._ Benson, 285 U.S. 22
(1932).
[210] 222 U.S. 541, 547-548 (1912). _See also_ Interstate Comm. Comm.
_v._ Illinois C.R., 215 U.S. 452, 470 (1910).
[211] 253 U.S. 287, 293-294 (1920).
[212] Ibid. 289. In injunctive proceedings, evidence is freshly
introduced whereas in the cases received on appeal from State courts,
the evidence is found within th
|