Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Florida
These cases resemble the one immediately preceding, in this: that review is sought in each of an award of a peremptory writ of mandamus by the supreme court of Florida to compel compliance with an order of the state railroad commission. In the first, the court sustained an order of the commission, made June 25, 1903, and to go into effect July 1, 1903, prescribing rates on the Florida West Shore Railway, charged to be under the control and management of the plaintiff in error (48 Fla. 129-152, 37 So. 314, 657, 658), the order being in these words: 'It is hereby ordered and adjudged by the railroad commission of the state of Florida that the following schedule of freight tariffs shall be allowed and adopted for freight shipments over the Seaboard Air Line Railway, to apply only to shipments from or destined to points on the Florida West Shore Railway, and from points on the Florida West Shore Railway to points on the Florida West Shore Railway, and the same shall be put into operation and be effective on the 1st day of July, A. D. 1903,' and followed by the schedule; and in the second, it enforced the order of the commission in respect to phosphates (which was noticed by us in the opinion in the preceding case). 48 Fla. 150, 37 So. 658.
The proceedings before the commission are not disclosed, nor is there anything to show upon what the orders were based. There was notice and a hearing. And in the pleadings in the first case appear the contracts between the plaintiff in error and the Florida West Shore Railway.
In the supreme court the relator presented no testimony, relying upon the statutory presumption which attends an order of the commission. The defendant introduced the report which it had made to the railroad commission for the year ending June 30, 1904, and the report of the railroad commission to the governor of the state for the year ending March 1, 1904, and upon these two reports the cases were considered by the supreme court.
Messrs. Hilary A. Herbert, George P. Raney, and Benjamin Micou for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 262-265 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. M. Barrs and W. H. Ellis for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 266-268 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court: