ÏILLEY V. SAVANNAH, FLOEIDA & WESTEBN R. CO. 659 �residue to officers appointed as it might see fit toorder, and that it was important for the general assembly to delegate to a commission the power to control the subject of the inspection of grain, and to prescribe what fees should be charged for the inspection of grain, and regulate them from time to time as circumstances might require. �The court says: "The principles repeatedly recognized by this and other courts of last resort, that the general assembly may authorize others to do things which it might properly yet caanot understandingly or advantageously do itself, seems to apply -with peculiar force to the ûxing of the amount of inspection fees so as to adjust them properly with reference to the expenses of inspection." See, also, Police Comviissionersy. Louïsville, 3 Bush, 597; The People v. Shepperd, 36 N. Y. 285; The People v. Pinchney, 32 N. Y. 377; Bush v. Ship- man, 4 Seam. 186; Trustees v. Tatman, 13 111. 27; County of Richland v. County of Lawrence, 12 111. 1 ; Coimnonwealth y. Duquel, 2 Yates, 493. �By the authority cited it is held that even if the power con- ferred on municipal corporations or special commissions be legislative or gttasi-legislative, still it is within the discretion of the legislature to coufer it. My conclusion upon this point is, therefore, that the act of October 19, 1879, is not uncon- stitutional by reason of a delegation to the railroad commis- sioners of legislative power. �It is ciaimed that the law is unconstitutional, because, by declaring that the schedule of rates established by the com^ missioners shall be held and taken in ail the courts as suffis cient evidence that the rates therein fixed ave just and reasonable, it deprives the railroad companies of their constitu- tional right to a trial by jury. In this provision the legisla- ture has exercised the power, exercised by ail the legislatures,, both federal and state, of prescribing the effect of evidence, and it has done nothing more. Even in criminal cases con- gress has declared that certain factsproven shall be evidence of guilt. For instance^ in section 3082 of the United States Eevised Statutes, it is provided that whenever, on an indict- ment for smuggling, the defendant is shown to be in posses- ����
